BISWAJIT ROOJ Vs. SAMARPITA (NAG) ROOJ @ MITHU ROOJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In a proceeding under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, an order was passed by the Additional District Judge, 1st Court, Suri, Birbhum, directing the husband/petitioner to pay maintenance pendente lite to the wife to the tune of Rs. 3000/-per month and litigation cost of Rs. 15,000/-. The said order is to take effect from the date of filing of the application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act.

(2.) The petitioner/husband submits that the wife is not entitled to any amount in view of the fact that the wife had voluntarily left the matrimonial home leaving the child behind and is in a adulterous relation with the tutor of his son. She left the house on 1st November, 2005 with the said paramour and never returned. The petitioner/husband denies the fact that he is owning any landed property or his earning Rs. 10,000/- per month as rent. Evidence shows that the said property is in the name of the father of the husband and the SARAL Forms, which were exhibited, show yearly income between 50,000/- and 65,000/-. The bank account of the husband however, was not produced. Although, the husband volunteers to submit a statement if it is required by the Court. Human mind is extremely complex. At this stage, it is not possible to decide the reason for the wife to leave the matrimonial home or the husband to attack the chastity of the wife. Whatever may be the reason the law however, permits maintenance to be paid during the pendency of the proceedings for divorce if it conforms to the requirement of law. The husband submits that considering the fact that the son is with the father and the wife is staying with the paramour and in fact, she is not in requirement of any fund at all no order should be passed in her favour.

(3.) The husband appears to have instituted a criminal proceeding against the wife in the year 2005, prior to the initiation of divorce proceedings. It was submitted that initially the parties thought of having a mutual divorce but the petition filed under Section 13-B was ultimately dismissed since the wife refused to appear and give her consent.