BIPLAB BHOWAL Vs. BIPASHA BHOWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against an order being No. 95 dated 3rd November, 2009 passed by the learned additional District Judge, 4th Court at Alipore in Matrimonial Suit No. 78 of 2009 which is being heard analogously with matrimonial Suit No. 79 of 2009. By the said order the opposite party's application for issuance of direction upon her husband (petitioner) to handover the key of the flat No. 213 "shanti bhaban", Hardwar for enabling the opposite party (wife) to stay there during her short period of stay at Hardwar during the Christmas Vacation, was allowed with a rider that the wife will return back the said key to the petitioner (husband) on her return to Kolkata.

(2.) THE petitioner (husband) is aggrieved by the said order. Hence, he filed the instant application before this Court. Heard Mr. Roy Chowdhury, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Ghosal, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the opposite party herein. Considered the materials on record including the order impugned. Let me now consider as to how far the learned Trial Judge was justified in passing the impugned order in the facts of the instant case. The petitioner (husband) filed a suit for divorce before the learned District judge at Alipore. The said suit which was registered as Matrimonial Suit No. 524 of 2005 was subsequently transferred to the Court of the learned Additional district Judge, 4th Court at Alipore and was renumbered as matrimonial Suit no. 78 of 2009. The wife's application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act which is being heard analogously with the husband's suit for divorce was registered as Matrimonial Suit No. 79 of 2009. The wife filed an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act in her husband's suit, inter alia praying for her alimony pendente lite, as well as cost of maintenance of her child. The Wife's said application was allowed by the learned Trial Judge on 22nd June, 2006. The husband was directed to pay a consolidated amount of Rs. 16,000/- per month on account of her alimony pendente lite and the cost of maintenance of the child. The husband was also directed to pay a sum of Rs. 15,000/- to the wife on account of litigation cost.

(3.) THE wife was not satisfied with the said order. Hence, she preferred a revisional application before this Hon'ble Court. The husband was also dissatisfied with the said order. Accordingly, he also preferred a revisional application before this Court. Both the aforesaid revisional applications were rejected. Thus, the order passed by the learned Trial Judge was maintained. While disposing of the aforesaid revisional applications, a direction was passed by this Hon'ble Court for early disposal of the suits. The learned Trial judge was directed to dispose of the matrimonial suits within six months from the date of communication of the said order. The real problem started thereafter, as the wife/opposite party started filing various interlocutory applications successively claiming diverse reliefs in the said suit. Sometime the wife claimed enhancement of her alimony amount. Sometime she claimed enhancement of the cost of maintenance of the child. Sometime she claimed further litigation cost. She also claimed litigation costs separately in her suit. On some occasions her prayer for enhancement of maintenance was allowed. Again on some occasions, her prayer for enhancement of maintenance was disallowed. Her prayer for litigation cost in her suit was allowed. The husband complied with all the orders passed by the learned Trial Judge from time to time either with regard to the maintenance of the wife and child and/or the enhancement thereof, or with regard to the litigation cost.