Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Sushma Mour vs Ravi Kumar Mour @ Sanjay on 29 January, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
Appellate Side
Present:
The Hon'ble Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta
C.R.R. 3724 of 2017
Sushma Mour
Versus
Ravi Kumar Mour @ Sanjay
For the Petitioner : Mr. Devajyoti Barman, Adv.
Ms. Sanjukta Basu Mallick, Adv.
For the Opposite Party : Mr. Kusal Kumar Mukherjee, Adv.
Mr. K. K. Tewary, Adv.
Mr. Narattam Acharyya, Adv.
Mr. Rahul Das, Adv.
Heard on : 19.11.2024
Judgment on : 29.01.2025
2
Ajay Kumar Gupta, J:
1.
Petitioner being the wife of the opposite party, Ravi Kumar
Mour @ Sanjay filed this Criminal Revisional application under
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 challenging the
Impugned Judgment dated September 4, 2017 passed by the Learned
Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Calcutta in Miscellaneous
Case No. 66 of 2009 (Sushma Mour Vs. Ravi Kumar Mour) under
Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
2. By the said judgment, Learned Additional Principal Judge
allowed a maintenance amount of Rs. 10,000/- per month from
September 1, 2017 which should be adjusted with the maintenance
amount awarded in favour of the petitioner/wife in other proceedings
filed under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act,
2005.
3. The background of the case for filing of this Criminal
Revisional application is that the petitioner was the legally married
wife of the opposite party herein. Their marriage was solemnized as
per the Hindu Rites and Customs on 23.01.2007 at Club Four
Seasons, Natural Heights, 137, V.I.P. Road, Kolkata 700 052.
4. At the time of the marriage, the petitioner’s parents had
fulfilled the demands of opposite party and his family members in the
3
form of cash, jewelleries, ornaments, cloths etc. These stridhan
properties were handed over to the mother of the opposite party. After
the marriage, the petitioner was taken to the house of the opposite
party situated at 7-H, Cornfield Road, Kolkata 700 019 where she led
her conjugal life for a week.
5. During her stay, she was subjected to both physical and
mental torture by the opposite party, who demanded further dowry
and she was not provided with proper food or clothing and was also
forced to do entire household works even in presence of servants,
who were employed particularly for such household works.
6. The petitioner was taken to various locations where the
opposite party had their residence-cum-hotels such as Guwahati,
Delhi and Kolkata. However, the physical and mental torture by the
opposite party and other family members were continued. Eventually,
the petitioner was driven out from matrimonial home on 18.04.2008
and has been staying thereafter at her parents’ house ever since.
During such stay at her parents’ house, the opposite party did not
provide her any maintenance though he had sufficient means to
maintain and completely deserted her at the mercy of her parents’
house.
4
7. The petitioner has no independent income to maintain herself.
She was also constantly threatened over telephone by the opposite
party, who warned her not to contact him otherwise they would not
hesitate to kill her. Despite such threatening, the petitioner visited
her matrimonial home at Guwahati on 27.10.2008 but she was not
allowed to stay there. Ultimately, her parents and relatives had to
bring her from Guwahati to Kolkata on 08.11.2008.
8. The opposite party did not also even hesitate to abort her
pregnancy by giving her wrong medicine in the name of vitamin
tablets. Due to such physical and mental tortures, the petitioner had
filed a case against the opposite party and his family members being
Case No. C/36115 of 2008 before the Court of Learned Metropolitan
Magistrate at Calcutta under Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860 and the same is still pending for adjudication.
9. Petitioner also filed an application under the Protection of
Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 against the opposite party
and other family members being Case No. C/6928 of 2009 when
opposite party refused to provide maintenance. In the said
proceeding, initially a sum of Rs. 5,000/- per month was awarded as
maintenance but, it was later increased to Rs. 8,000/- per month.
5
10. She has claimed a sum of Rs. 2,30,000/- as monthly
maintenance for herself based on the status and lifestyle, lead by the
opposite party/husband and his income was/is more than Rs. 20
Lakhs per month from hotels business, namely, “Mayur Residency”
situated at 109, S.N. Banerjee Road, Kolkata – 700 016, “Mayur
Hotel” situated at Paltan Bazar in Guwahati, Assam and “Mayur
Assam Hotel” situated at 129, Arakasan Road, Delhi.
11. The petitioner had also filed an application under Section 24
of the Hindu Marriage Act praying for alimony pendente lite in a
matrimonial suit filed by the husband seeking divorce. The said
application was allowed by the Learned Judge and disposed of by an
order dated 17.01.2019 in Matrimonial Suit No. 11 of 2009 thereby
awarded a sum of Rs. 32,000/- as alimony pendente lite and
litigation cost of Rs. 1 Lakh to the petitioner.
12. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said awarded
alimony pendente lite by the Learned Judge, the opposite party filed a
Civil Revisional application being CO No. 2859 of 2018 for reduction
of amount of alimony pendente lite granted @ Rs. 32,000/- per
month. At the same time, the petitioner/wife has also filed another
Civil Revisional application being CO 3617 of 2019 for enhancement
of the sum of alimony pendente lite.
6
13. Both the Revisional applications were taken up together for
hearing by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court and disposed of both
the Revisional applications without interfering with the impugned
order dated 17.01.2019 and further directed to the husband to go on
paying an ad-hoc amount of Rs. 32,000/- to the wife for the alimony
pendente lite as well as litigation cost of Rs. 1 Lakh as directed by the
Learned Judge and remanded the matter to the Learned Trial Court
to hear afresh and decide the same upon taking into consideration of
all the documents filed by both the sides and come to a reasoned
conclusion as to the alimony pendente lite and litigation cost payable
by the husband to the wife adjusting therefrom the amount already
paid by the husband to the wife pursuant to the order of other
proceedings.
14. Upon such direction, the Learned Judge finally disposed of
afresh the said application filed under Section 24 of the Hindu
Marriage Act by allowing the same amount of Rs. 32,000/- as
alimony pendente lite every month till disposal of the Matrimonial
Suit No. 11/2009 on 22.12.2023.
15. As per the subsequent change of circumstances, the petitioner
filed supplementary affidavit indicating that the said Matrimonial
Suit No. 11/2009 was disposed of on 22.12.2023 by the Learned
7
Additional District Judge, 4th Court at Alipore and dissolved the
marriage by way of decree of divorce. The same is under challenge
before the Hon’ble High Court in an Appeal being FAT No. 62 of 2024
and the same is pending.
16. The petitioner now prays a total maintenance to the tune of
Rs. 2 Lakhs per month as per the income and status of her husband
indicating her expenses for her survival as described below:
i. Monthly rent for a 3 BHK flat at New Town – Rs.
10,230/-.
ii. Monthly travelling expenses for court visits and
other requirements – Rs. 5,000/-.iii. Monthly expenses for fooding – Rs. 6,000/-.
iv. Monthly expenses towards litigations pending in
High Court, Bankshall Court and Family Court – Rs.
12,000/-
v. Monthly Expenses for clothing – Rs. 6,000/-
Total expenses in average in a month is hence Rs.
52,230/-.
17. It is further reiterated that the opposite party earns more
than Rs. 20,00,000/= per month as such petitioner is entitled to get
8
at least Rs. 2,00,000/= per month and same is commensurated with
the income and status of her husband.
18. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the opposite party vehemently raised objection on such prayer for
allowing maintenance to the tune of Rs. 2,00,000/= per month
mainly on three-fold grounds.
Firstly, the petitioner is not entitled to any maintenance as
she is an well educated lady and can manage her own income to
maintain herself, if she chooses to work in any organisation.
Secondly, the opposite party denied the allegations of
accepting a huge dowry. In fact, he was a divorcee from his first
marriage and this fact was known to her. The opposite party used to
stay separately from his family members so the question of
demanding dowry or torturing her does not arise. She had no love
and affection to the opposite party/husband despite his efforts to
maintain a normal matrimonial relation. However, these attempts
failed due to her arrogant behaviour. She was more interested in the
wealth of her mother-in-law and immediately after marriage, she
started insisting the opposite party to take share forcibly in the
properties. And
9
Finally, the opposite party has been paying Rs. 6,000/= per
month to his first wife from his actual income of Rs. 18,000/= per
month as an employee of H.P. Institute of Insurance, where he works
as a Relationship Manager of the Company. He denied the claim of
the Petitioner that he has hotel businesses at Delhi, Kolkata and
Guwahati.
19. Having heard the submissions of the learned counsels
appearing on behalf of the parties and on perusal of the application
as well as annexure thereto, this Court finds the petitioner has filed
several proceedings against the opposite party and his family
members. She also filed applications for maintenance one after
another in different proceedings. There is no dispute that she was not
the wife of the opposite party and she has no her income to maintain
herself.
20. She was allowed maintenance in a case filed under the
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 against the
opposite party being Case No. C/6928 of 2009. In the said
proceedings, initially a sum of Rs. 5,000/- per month was awarded as
maintenance and, subsequently, the same interim maintenance
amount was enhanced to Rs. 8,000/- per month.
10
21. Maintenance of Rs. 10,000/= per month was allowed in
proceedings filed under Section 125 of the CrPC on 04.09.2017 by
the Learned Additional Principal Judge and same is effected on and
from September 1, 2017. However, it should be adjusted with the
maintenance amount awarded in favour of the petitioner/wife in
connection with the case under P.W.D.V. Act.
22. Similarly, a sum of Rs. 32,000/= per month was allowed in an
application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act as alimony
pendente lite. The said application was allowed by the Learned Judge
and disposed of by an order dated 17.01.2019 in Matrimonial Suit
No. 11 of 2009 thereby allowed a sum of Rs. 32,000/- as alimony
pendente lite and litigation cost of Rs. 1 Lakh to the petitioner.
23. The Hon’ble High Court did not interfere with the said
alimony amount of Rs. 32,000/= in Civil Revisional applications filed
by the respective parties and further directed to the husband that he
will go on paying an ad-hoc amount of Rs. 32,000/= per month to the
wife for the time being, as well as, the litigation costs of Rs. 1 lakh, as
directed by the Learned Trial Court.
24. It was further pleased to direct all arrears of alimony pendente
lite and the litigation costs shall be paid by the husband to the wife
11
within three weeks from date, along with current monthly alimony for
every month by the 15th day of each succeeding months.
25. However, the matter was remanded back to the Learned Trial
Court directing to hear afresh. The Learned Trial Court had to
dispose of the alimony application of the wife afresh, upon taking into
consideration all the documents filed by both the sides and come to a
reasoned conclusion as to the alimony payable by the husband to the
wife, adjusting therefrom the amount already paid by the husband to
the wife pursuant to the order of Learned Courts passed in different
proceedings.
26. Finally, the said Misc. Case No. 4 of 2017 filed under Section
24 of the Hindu marriage Act, 1955 was heard and disposed of afresh
on 22.12.2023 and thereby the Learned Judge keeps the same
amount of Rs. 32,000/= as alimony pendente lite for every month till
disposal of the Matrimonial Suit No. 11/2009.
27. Rs. 32,000/- per month as alimony pendente lite was
allowed by the Learned Judge in Misc Case No. 4 of 2017 arising out
of Matrimonial Suit No. 11 of 2009 vide order dated 22.12.2023 has
not been challenged by either of the parties. Accordingly, said
amount was final as alimony pendente lite for every month till
disposal of the Matrimonial Suit.
12
28. It appears from the evidence of the parties led before the
Family Court that income disclosed by the opposite party/husband
was not the only income. He has admitted that he owns 1901 shares
of Mayur Resort Ltd., 80,000 shares in Mayur Krishna Pvt. Ltd. and
is a shareholder of Mayur Hotel, Guwahati, Mayur Krishna Cinema
Hall, Guwahati, Assam and Mayur Krishna Market at Guwahati. That
apart, the husband admitted to be a shareholder of M/s. Moora &
Moora Finance Pvt. Ltd., holding 80,010 shares and has also shares
under the company in a hotel in Kolkata, namely, Mayur Residency.
29. It was further admitted by the husband in cross-examination
that the husband only showed the yearly income from his salary, but
not from the other earnings. Therefore, the opposite party did not
disclose his actual income in the proceedings filed under Section 125
of the CrPC. He had suppressed his actual income to deprive his wife
from getting actual maintenance though he has moral and statutory
duty to maintain her, if she is unable to maintain herself.
30. In view of the facts as discussed above, this Court is of the
opinion that the Learned Judge, Family Court has not considered the
application under Section 125 of the CrPC based on evidence as led
by the Parties. Learned Judge has also not considered about the
actual income, financial capacity and status of living of the husband.
13
Consequently, order dated September 4, 2017 passed by the Learned
Judge, Family Court in Misc. Case No. 66 of 2009 is hereby modified
and allowed the maintenance amount as similar as to the tune of Rs.
32,000/= per month as awarded by the Learned Judge initially on
17.01.2019 passed in a Misc. Case filed under Section 24 of the
Hindu Marriage Act arising from Matrimonial Suit as the same was
not disputed by the parties. The opposite party was paying the said
amount from 2019. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court also upheld
the said amount awarded by the Learned Judge. Even after remanded
by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, the Learned Judge again
reiterated and fixed alimony pendente lite @ Rs. 32,000/- per month
after hearing the parties.
31. It is settled law that the maintenance amount awarded must
be reasonable and realistic considering the financial capacity, actual
income, standard of living and reasonable expenses for his over
maintenance and other liabilities vis-a-vis the sufficiency of the
quantum has to be adjudged so that the wife is able to maintain
herself with reasonable comfort. The amount of maintenance as
aforesaid awarded by this Court would be just and reasonable at this
stage.
14
32. Accordingly, CRR 3724 of 2017 is, thus, allowed.
Connected applications, if any, are also, thus, disposed of.
33. The opposite party/husband shall pay a sum of Rs. 32,000/=
per month to the petitioner/wife on and from September 1, 2017,
which should be adjusted with the maintenance amount awarded in
favour of the petitioner/wife in other proceedings and same shall be
paid by the husband every month by the 15th day of each succeeding
months continuously without fail. All arrears of maintenance, if any,
shall be paid by the husband to the wife within six months from the
date either at a time or in instalments.
34. The Impugned Judgment dated September 4, 2017 passed
by the Learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Calcutta in
Miscellaneous Case No. 66 of 2009 (Sushma Mour Vs. Ravi Kumar
Mour) under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is,
thus, modified to the aforesaid extent.
35. Let a copy of this Judgment be sent to the Learned Court
below for information.
36. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
37. Parties shall act on the server copies of this Judgment
uploaded on the website of this Court.
15
38. Urgent photostat certified copy of this Judgment, if applied
for, is to be given as expeditiously to the parties on compliance of all
legal formalities.
(Ajay Kumar Gupta, J)
P. Adak (P.A.)
[ad_1]
Source link