NRIPEN KALITA Vs. PADMINI KALITA (BHUYAN)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. P. Kalita and Ms. S. Goswami, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. P.S. Bhattacharyya, learned counsel for the respondent.

(2.) The appellant is before this Court in this appeal assailing the order dated 13.2.2018 passed in Misc. Case No.624/2017. Through the said order, the Court below has enhanced the payment of maintenance to the wife and daughter of the appellant. The respondent wife was before the Court below in an application filed under Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking enhancement of the maintenance which had been granted earlier for her benefit and for the benefit of the daughter. The Court below having taken into consideration the fact that the maintenance was last granted through the order dated 18.5.2015, was of the opinion that the same is required to be enhanced keeping in view the cost of living. Accordingly, in respect of wife, the maintenance which was at Rs.1,400/- per month, was enhanced to Rs.2,500/- and the maintenance for the daughter, which was at Rs.600/-, was enhanced to Rs.2,000/- per month. In total, the maintenance payable by the appellant is at Rs.4,500/-. The appellant, therefore, claiming to be aggrieved is before this Court in this appeal.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant while assailing the order passed by the Court below would contend that the manner in which the enhancement is made by the Court below is not justified. At the outset, he contends that the actual income of the appellant is required to be determined and, therefore, the quantum of maintenance by way of enhancement is not justified as the said exercise has not been done. It is also contended that even if the cost of living/expenses having been increased is taken into consideration, the percentage of enhancement as granted is unreasonable and, therefore, the order is liable to be set aside.