Husband lost his job due 2 wife’s behaviour. Still wife gets 7000 p.m. as maintenance / MOOLAH !!

ALL in the interest of justice and Equity
Husband lost his job due 2 wife’s behaviour.
Still wife gets 7000 p.m. as maintenance / MOOLAH !!
Kolkata High Court (Appellete Side)
Kamalesh Mukherjee Snandy Vs. Dipannita Mukhopadhyay
11 August, 2015
Author: Harish Tandon
CO 2866 of 2015
Item No. SL-13
Mr. Angshuman Chakraborty, Advocate
Mr. Shivaji Mitra, Advocate ……for the Petitioner
This revisional application is directed against the order dated no. 11 dated May 19, 2015 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, First Court, Hooghly in Matrimonial Suit No. 628 of 2013 by which the application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is disposed of. The husband/petitioner filed the aforesaid suit under Section 12 of the Act for declaration that the marriage is a nullity.

It fell from the learned Advocate for the petitioner that his client is a diploma holder and was at one point of time in gainful employment. According to him, the petitioner lost the job because of the behaviour of the wife/opposite party and is presently unemployed.

In an application under Section 24 of the Act, the wife asserts that the monthly income of the husband is Rs.20,000/- per month which has not been denied by the husband/petitioner except that he is not presently in gainful employment. The petitioner is an able-bodied person and has a capacity to earn. If at one point of time he was earning a sum of Rs.20,000/- per month, the Court shall not deny the maintenance to the wife on the basis of the submission of the husband that he is not in employment.

The Trial Court considered the status of the parties in the society and have further taken into account the prices of the essential commodities and directed the alimony pendente lite of Rs.7,000/- per month to be paid to the wife from the date of the order. The Trial Court appears to have taken a lenient approach in the matter in not directing the alimony to be paid from the date of the application. It appears that there is no issue from the said wedlock.

This Court does not find that the sum of Rs.7,000/- towards the alimony is too excessive and not in commensurate with the income of the husband.

This Court, therefore, does not find any grounds warranting the interference with the impugned order.

The revisional application thus fails. No order as to costs.

(Harish Tandon, J.)

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 or High court websites. Some notes are made by Vinayak. 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 and if you are reading this on tumblr please post responses as comments at . Vinayak is NOT a lawyer and nothing in this blog and/or site and/or file should be considered as legal advise.
CASE FROM JUDIS / INDIAN KANOON WEB SITE with necessary Emphasis, Re formatting

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s