Friday, September 6, 2013

NO ONE believes hubby/wife on earnings!! wife says hubby earns 18000, hubby say 1800!, court orders 1500 pm!!

While a lot is said about the law, the jurisprudence and dispensation of justice, ultimately when it comes to FACTS, the courts do NOT seem to believe either the husband or the wife !!

In this case the wife claims that husband earns 18 thousands a months while husband says 18 hundred ...yep 1 / 10th !!

There is NO string proof either side and finally court orders Rs 1500 per month 

This judgment and other similar judgments posted on this blog was / were collected from Judis nic in website and / or other websites of Govt. of India or other internet web sites like worldlii or indiankanoon. Some notes are made by Vinayak. This is a free service provided by Vinayak (pen name). Vinayak is a member of SIF - Save Indian Family Foundation. SIF is committed to fighting FALSE dowry cases and elder abuse. SIF supports gender equality and a fair treatment of law abiding Indian men. Should you find the dictum in this judgment or the judgment itself repealed or amended or would like to make improvements or comments, please post a comment on the comment section of the blog or write to e _ vinayak @ yahoo . com (please remove spaces). Vinayak is NOT a lawyer and nothing in this blog and/or site and/or file should be considered as legal advise.

Kolkata High Court (Appellete Side)
Anirban Lahiri  ... vs Soumi Lahiri Nee Banerjee ... on 27 August, 2013
Author: Subhro Kamal Mukherjee

C.O. No.611 of 2012

Anirban Lahiri ...petitioner.
Soumi Lahiri Nee Banerjee ...opposite party.

Mr. Debjit Mukherjee, Mr. Basudeb Gayen, ...for the petitioner.
Mr. Biswajit Dutta. ...for the opposite party.

This matter is taken up for hearing on the mentioning by Mr. Debjit Mukherjee, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, in presence of Mr. Basudeb Gayen, learned advocate appearing for the opposite party.

The husband/opposite party instituted a suit for divorce. In the said suit, an application for maintenance and cost of litigation was filed by the wife under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The application was registered as Miscellaneous Case no.78 of 2010.

The wife claimed that the husband has been a business person and has been earning about Rs.18,000/- (Rupees eighteen thousand) only per month.

The husband, on the contrary, stated that he has been in small business and has been earning only Rs.1800/- (Rupees one thousand eight hundred) only per month. 

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned trial judge fixed the maintenance at the rate of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand) only per month. The learned trial judge, also, assessed the cost of litigation at Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) only. ; 

After hearing Mr. Debjit Mukherjee, learned advocate appearing in support of the revisional application and Mr. Basudeb Gayen, learned advocate appearing for the opposite party and considering the fact that the husband is in small business and having regard to the background of the families of the parties, I feel that justice will be sub-served if the husband is directed to pay Rs.1500/- (Rupees one thousand five hundred) only as alimony pendente lite from the date of filing of the application. I, however, decline to interfere with the order assessing the cost of litigation.

The order impugned is, thus, modified as above. With the aforesaid directions, the revisional application stands disposed of. ; 

I make no order as to costs.

(Subhro Kamal Mukherjee, J.)


FOLLOW on twitter or on wordpress or  FOR 100s of high court and supreme court cases
Father of a lovely daughter, criminal in the eyes of a wife, son of an compassionate elderly mother, old timer who hasn't given up, Male, activist