SARMISTHA CHAKRABORTY (NEE DEBNATH) Vs. ABHIJIT CHAKRABORTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On call none appeared on behalf of the opposite party. Affidavit of service has been filed pursuant to order dated 12.5.2017, but in spite of none appeared. It would appear from the order dated 22.11.2013 that one Mr. Sounavo Basu, learned advocate, had appeared on behalf of the opposite party. It also appears from the order dated 17.5.2013 that pursuant to the caveat lodged by one Sri Dipak Kumar Mukhopadhyay, learned advocate, a copy of the revisional application was served upon him. The listing of a case in the cause list is notice to all the parties but since none appeared on behalf of the opposite party, it is imperative for this Court to take up this matter on its merit upon hearing learned advocate for the petitioner. The opposite party Abhijit Chakraborty filed a suit for decree of divorce by dissolving the marriage with the petitioner. Admittedly, the petitioner is a legally married wife and out of their wedlock two children were born to them. The matrimonial suit being MAT Suit No. 91 of 2009 was filed and on receipt of the summons the petitioner entered appearance and filed an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for the maintenance pendente lite which was registered as Misc. Case No. 945 of 2009 in the Court of 11th Additional District Judge at Alipore. In the said Misc. Case the petitioner prayed for direction upon the opposite party to pay to the petitioner a sum of Rs. 3,000/- per month towards the maintenance of the petitioner and Rs. 6,000/- per month towards the maintenance of the children and further to pay a sum of Rs. 15,000/- towards costs of litigation. The learned District Judge upon hearing the learned advocate for the parties to the suit allowed the Misc.

(2.) This is the order impugned by the petitioner in this revisional application, inter alia, on the grounds that the learned Judge has committed an error in law with the material irregularities in not directing the opposite party to pay maintenance pendente lite with effect from the date of filing of the application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act and secondly that the learned Judge committed irregularity in exercise of its jurisdiction by imposing a condition that the wife petitioner will have to vacate and make over vacant possession of one of the accommodations under her control in order to get maintenance pendente lite as pre condition.

(3.) Heard the learned advocate for the petitioner and gone through the order impugned.