Calcutta High Court: A single bench comprising of Shampa Dutt (Paul), J., held that a man who marries for a second time is still obligated to maintain his first wife of 9 years and set aside the impugned order and modified the maintenance amount back to Rs. 6,000 per month, payable from the date of filing of the maintenance application in accordance with the guidelines set by the Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324.
Factual Matrix
In the instant matter, the petitioner, ipreferred an application under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Malda, seeking maintenance from her husband-opposite party 1. The petitioner’s case is that petitioner’s marriage was solemnized on 12.10.2003 as per Muslim rights and customs with the opposite party 1. After some time, petitioner’s husband and other in-laws started torturing her, demanding additional dowry and later the husband allegedly married another woman and subsequently drove the petitioner out of her matrimonial home on 13-10-2012.
Procedural History
The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chanchal, Malda, vide order dated 06-10-2016, directed the husband to pay maintenance of Rs. 6,000 per month to the petitioner. In response, the husband filed a criminal revision before the Additional Sessions Judge, Chanchal, Malda and vide order dated 27-02-2019, the Additional Sessions Judge modified the maintenance amount, reducing it to Rs. 4,000 per month.
Moot point
Whether the impugned order dated 27-02-2019 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, modifying the maintenance amount, valid and in accordance with the law?
Contentions
The petitioner contended that she has no independent income or house and that her husband never provided her with any maintenance. The petitioner contended that the impugned order is arbitrary and lacks any reasonable ground as to modify the original maintenance order, and therefore, should be set aside. On the other hand, the respondent contended that the Additional Sessions Judge had considered all relevant circumstances before modifying the maintenance amount.
Court’s Observation
The court held that a man who marries for a second time is still obligated to maintain his first wife of 9 years. The Court stated that “a woman who has diligently, sincerely and lovingly put in so many years her life, in a relationship with the opposite party no. 1, deserves to be looked after and cared for by him, as long as she needs/requires the same.”
The Court observed that the order of maintenance should have been granted from the date of filing the maintenance application, in accordance with the guidelines set by the Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324.
Court’s Verdict
The Court allowed the present revision application and set aside the impugned order dated 27-02-2019 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge. The Court modifies the order dated 06-10-2016 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate and fixed the maintenance amount to Rs. 6,000 per month, payable from the date of filing of the original maintenance application on 15th of each month, starting from August 2023. The Court directed that the arrears of maintenance were to be paid in 12 equal monthly instalments, starting from August 2023.
[Shefali Bibi v. Manjur Alam, 2023 SCC OnLine Cal 2204, order dated 31-07-2023]
*Judgment by Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul)
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Mr. Musharraf Alam Sk., Mr. Sujoy Sarkar, Ms. Susmita Ghora, Counsel for the Petitioner;
Mr. Narayan Prasad Agarwala, Mr. Pratick Bose, Counsel for the State;
Mr. Angshuman Chakraborty, Mr. Shasanka Shekhar Saha, Counsel for the Opposite Party 2.
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
