PRABIR KUMAR PALIT Vs. RUNU PALIT AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The two revisional applications being CRR. No. 2921/14 and CRR. No. 1002/17 were taken up together for final hearing as the same were connected ones. The petitioner filed the revisional application being CRR. No. 2921/14 (the revision of 2014, for short) challenging an order dated 22.07.2014 passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, 17th Court, Alipore, South 24 Paraganas in Criminal Motion No. 01/14, thereby, modifying the original of order dated 09.10.2013 passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate, 8th Court, Alipore, South 24 Paraganas in Misc Case No. 649/09 under Sec. 125 of the Code and directing the petitioner to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs. 10,000.00 to the present opposite party no. 1 for herself and Rs. 7000.00 per month for her daughter/added opposite party no. 3 from the date of filing of the application i.e., 28.10.2009. The said petitioner subsequently filed a revisional application being CRR. No. 1002/17 (the revision of 2017, for short), thereby challenging an order dated 04.03.2017 passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate, 8th Court, Alipore, South 24 Paraganas in M.Ex. Case No. 67/13, thereby directing the cashier to allow the present opposite party no. 1 to withdraw Rs. 40,000.00 from cash and further directing the present petitioner "to pay Rs. 60,000.00 outstanding, Rs. 17000.00 arrear for the next three months." The Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that although initially the Learned Judicial Magistrate also granted payment of a monthly maintenance allowance to the petitioner's son, the same was anulled by the revisional order passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge as the son had attained majority at the time of passing of the order.

(2.) As regards the revision of 2014, the Learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that at the time of filing of the original application under Sec. 125 of the Code, the daughter being the added opposite party no. 3 herein was not the claimant. The opposite party no. 1 being the mother of the added opposite party no. 3 had claimed the sum of maintenance on behalf of the latter. He submitted that this is an incurable irregularity and would disentitle the petitioner's daughter from getting any maintenance from the petitioner. Besides, the opposite party no. 3 was employed and was earning sufficiently. He submitted that the opposite party had received money several times from the petitioner. He contended that the opposite party no. 1 actually resided in the house of the husband/petitioner for about four years in the Andaman and Nicobar islands. The Learned Advocate further submitted that although maintenance allowance was made payable from the date of application, there was no reason recorded by the Learned Revisional Court for the same.

(3.) As regards the revision of 2017, the Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that in terms of the orders passed, all payments had been made. According to him, as on the date of the passing of the impugned order in the execution case, the amount that remained payable in respect of the execution case had been duly paid.