ARUP JANA Vs. KAMALIKA NEOGY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revisional application is directed against an order dated 11th November, 2014 passed by the learned 8th Additional District Judge at Alipore in Misc. Case No.17 of 2014 (M.A.T. 22 of 2014). By the order impugned the learned Court below has allowed an application filed by the wife/opposite party under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking maintenance pendentelite. By the order impugned the learned Court below has directed the husband/petitioner to pay alimony pendentelite to the tune of Rs.20,000/-(Rupees Twenty Thousand) only, per month together with litigation cost for a sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand) only. Being aggrieved by the said order the husband/petitioner has filed this revisional application.

(2.) Mr. Partha Pratim Roy, appearing for the opposite party, raises a preliminary objection that since the M.A.T. suit has already been withdrawn by the petitioner, present revisional application is not maintainable. Although, the suit has been withdrawn, the order passed under Section 24 has attained its finality and the opposite party/wife has a right to execute the said order. Therefore, this submission that the revisional application is not maintainable, is incorrect and I hold that the revisional application is maintainable.

(3.) In the present revisional application the petitioner has agitated that the learned Court below has acted illegally in granting alimony pendentelite to the wife despite the fact that the wife is a highly qualified lady. She is able to earn for herself. It has been further agitated that the learned Court below has omitted to take note of the appointment letter of the opposite party/wife which shows that she was in service and was drawing a salary of Rs.18,000/- (Rupees Eighteen Thousand) only, per month. Petitioner has annexed certain documents to show that the opposite party is a qualified lady and she can easily earn for herself. To the application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act filed by the wife/opposite party the petitioner filed a written objection and in paragraph 10 of the said written objection the petitioner denied that the wife had no independent source of income. It has been agitated that the wife was working in a private limited company, namely, M/s. Quantum Systems and was earning around Rs.18,000/- (Rupees Eighteen Thousand) only, per month which is apparent from the appointment letter of his wife/opposite party. Save and except this statement that the wife was employed and that she had an appointment letter no other documents have been produced in support of the continuous service of the wife or that no document has been filed to show that the wife/opposite party was in service and was drawing salary on the day when the impugned order was passed. It has been further submitted by the petitioner that in the Court below the wife suppressed that she is highly qualified and having regard to such suppression the Court should not grant any relief to the wife. Before the learned Court below no evidence was adduced by either parties and on the basis of the petition and objection and counter-reply the learned Court below has decided the application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act finally. The learned advocate appearing for the opposite party submits that countermanding the husband/petitioner's written objection the wife/opposite party filed a reply and in paragraph 6 of the said reply the wife stated