RAJASHREE BAGCHI Vs. SOURAV BAGCHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant application is preferred u/s 397/401 read with Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the Judgment and Order dtd. 20/6/2017 passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court Nabadwip, Nadia in connection with MR Case No. 229 of 2014 thereby directing the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.5000.00per month to the petitioner and Rs.3000.00 per month to their minor son as maintenance from the date of order, totalling Rs.8000.00 per month as maintenance.

(2.) The brief fact of the case is that the marriage between the petitioner and the opposite party was solemnised on 27th June of 2010 according to the Special Marriage Act. Thereafter on 2/12/2010 social marriage was solemnised according to the Hindu Rites and Customs. The marriages between the parties were duly consummated; out wedlock between the parties one son was born on 25/8/2012. Some matrimonial disputes cropped up between the parties consequently the petitioner and her son are now living separately. The opposite party did not pay maintenance to the petitioner and her son though the opposite party is a Government employee employed under the Director of Consumer Affairs and presently earning salary of Rs.36000.00per month. For getting maintenance, the petitioner for herself and for her son, has initiated a proceeding before the Learned Magistrate being MR Case No. 229 of 2014 u/s 124 Cr.P.C. The present opposite party contested the proceeding by filing written objections. The petitioner as well as OP both appeared before the Learned Magistrate and adduced their respective testimonies. After hearing the parties the Learned Magistrate has awarded the maintenance of Rs.5000.00 and Rs.3000.00 per month towards the maintenance in favour of the petitioner and her son respectively and also ordered the maintenance allowance shall be effected from the date of the order. Hence this revision.

(3.) Learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted before this court that the impugned order of maintenance passed by the Learned Magistrate is palpably illegal in the eye of law. Learned Magistrate has not considered the facts and circumstances of this case thus the meagre amount of maintenance was adduced. He also pointed out that the Learned Magistrate has not considered the income of the opposite party, on that score the order of maintenance should be enhanced. Thus she prayed for enhancement of the maintenance amount passed by the Learned Magistrate. By filing supplementary affidavit the petitioner annexed several documents regarding the education of her son and the expenses thereof and trying to impress this court that presently it is not possible for the petitioner to carry out the living of herself as well as her son of such amount of maintenance. Learned Advocate for the opposite party/husband submitted before this court that this revisional court is hearing an application u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The power enumerated u/s 127 C.r.P.C. enable the jurisdictional Magistrate to enhance the amount of maintenance in change circumstances. If the petitioner is aggrieved with the order of the Learned Magistrate regarding its amount thereof he may approach the jurisdictional Magistrate for its enhancement. He further argued that the impugned order of maintenance passed by the Learned Magistrate suffers no illegality and it is not at all perverse.