SARITA KUMARI AND ANOTHER vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
Present:-
HON’BLE JUSTICE CHAITALI CHATTERJEE (DAS).
CRR NO.2375 of 2024
+
IA NO:CRAN/1/2025

MRS. SARITA KUMARI & ANR.
VS.
THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ANR.

For the Petitioners : Mr. Sagnik Chatterjee, Adv.,
Mr. Sayan Mukherjee, Adv.
For the O.P. NO.2 : Ms. Rajashree Tah, Adv.,
Ms. Trisha Rakshit, Adv.,
Ms. Aishwarya Datta, Adv.
Last heard on : 31.08.2026
Judgement on : 31.08.2026
Uploaded on : 02.09.2026
CHAITALI CHATTERJEE (DAS), J. :-
nd

1. Assailing an order of refusal passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 2
Court, Durgapur dated March 19, 2024 in connection with a proceeding under
Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in respect of the prayer of the
present petitioner no.1/wife for maintenance and granting a paltry sum of
Rs.4,000/- as an interim maintenance to the minor child, the present
revisional application has been filed.

2. At the time of admission of this revisional application, the learned
coordinate Bench considered the contents of the petition as well as the
supplementary affidavit filed before the Court and found that a certificate of

Page 1 of 6

enlistment issued by the concerned authority indicates that the opposite
party/husband is the owner of the retail medical shop being Gayatri Medical
and it was never disclosed. It is submitted that a false affidavit of assets and
liabilities was placed before the learned Magistrate by the husband in order to
suppress his actual income and on the basis of which, the learned court
passed such order of interim maintenance of a meagre amount of Rs.4,000/-
per month in favour of the child and refused the prayer for maintenance made
by the wife, present petitioner no.1.

3. Direction was also given to the opposite party husband by the learned
coordinate Bench to file Affidavit-in-Opposition and to the petitioners to file
reply thereto. Both the parties have exchanged such affidavits. The learned
coordinate Bench further directed the opposite party husband to continue to
pay Rs.10,000/- per month for the minor child till the disposal of the
revisional application. This order was passed on November 21, 2024.

4. The learned advocate representing the petitioners submits that the husband
since thereafter did not pay any amount excepting an amount of Rs.15,000/-
and thereby accrued a total outstanding of Rs.2,05,000/- as on August 31,
2026 towards maintenance in respect of the minor child. The opposite party
husband has not even paid the amount of Rs.4,000/- as directed by the
learned trial Court against which no challenge was made by the opposite party
husband. It is further argued before this Court that the learned Judicial
Magistrate failed to consider that the income being the personal knowledge of
the husband, it was not possible for the wife to disclose the same and the
learned Magistrate on the basis of such finding, refused the prayer of the
petitioners to grant maintenance which is not sustainable in the eye of law.

5. Learned advocate representing the opposite party husband has filed the
Affidavit-in-Opposition before this Court today whereby denied the contention

Page 2 of 6

raised by the petitioner. According to the learned advocate, the payment was
made for an amount of Rs.4,000/- till November, 2024 and subsequently, the
amount was enhanced to Rs.10,000/-, which was beyond his capacity to pay
as his monthly income was only Rs.6,000/- per month.

6. Having heard the learned advocates for the parties and after going through
the materials on record, it is evident that the opposite party husband failed to
comply with the direction passed by the learned trial Court as well as by the
Hon’ble coordinate Bench in making payment of the maintenance either to the
extent of Rs.4,000/- or to the extent of Rs.10,000/- from November, 2024.
There was no specific order restraining the husband for not making payment
of rs 4000/- which amount was otherwise not challenged .Since the order
granting maintenance to the child was not assailed by the husband it is to be
presumed that he was not aggrieved by such order passed by the learned
Magistrate and, therefore, he cannot evade his responsibility to pay the said
admitted amount of Rs.4,000/- to the minor child in order to show his
bonafide intention .

7. It can be found further from the submission of the learned advocate for the
petitioner that an execution case has also been filed considering the
maintenance amount of Rs.10,000/- as directed by this Court. No satisfactory
explanation can be found from the learned advocate representing the opposite
party husband for non-compliance of the order passed by the learned
coordinate Bench and further, as to why he did not pay a single farthing
excepting Rs.15,000/- to his minor child since November, 2024.

8. The order passed by the learned court of Magistrate that the affidavit of assets
and liabilities filed by both the parties prima facie disclosed the income of the
husband shown as Rs.6,000/- and the income of the petitioner wife shown as
Rs.15,000/- per month. It is categorically submitted before this Court that the
opposite party husband had suppressed his actual income as he did not

Page 3 of 6

disclose the medical store which is evident from the order passed by the
learned coordinate Bench. The wife alleged about the business of home
appliances and gift items and it is strenuously argued that the husband
intentionally suppressed that business in order to reduce his income.
However, this issue cannot be decided on the basis of the material available
before this Court and the interim order was passed on March 19, 2024 only on
the basis of the materials available before the Court on that date. Apparently,
from the record, the three different types of source of income of the husband
can be found other than his own statement of working as the supervisor of
Kalimata Catering, earning Rs.6,000/. The medicine shop that is being run by
him was found from the Certificate of Enlistment issued by Rampurhat
Municipality in respect of an RTI application and the averment made by the
wife regarding the business of home appliances and gift items.
9. On behalf of the petitioners, a supplementary affidavit has been filed before
this Court giving detailed description of the other dealership business of
automobile products. Since the husband had suppressed or did not disclose
those businesses in the affidavit of assets and liabilities before the learned
Magistrate, liberty is given to the learned Magistrate to deal with the same at
the time of trial. Liberty is also given to the petitioners to file an application to
that extent incorporating all necessary documents by way of affidavit before
the learned court and to serve a copy of the same to the opposite party
husband.
10. Learned Magistrate is directed to hear and dispose of the application filed
under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure after affording adequate
opportunity of hearing to both the parties and granting the husband an
opportunity to file written objection to the application to be filed by the
present petitioners.


11. In view of the above discussions, this Court is of considered view that the
conduct of the husband manifests an attempt to evade his responsibility as
father to maintain his child. He has stopped making payment of the amount

Page 4 of 6

which he never challenged and this demonstrates his reluctant attitude
towards discharging his parental obligation to maintain child which cannot be
appreciated.

12. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the petitioner would continue to pay
the amount that was decided by the learned coordinate Bench to the tune of
Rs.10,000/-till the final hearing of the maintenance application . However, it
is made clear that in the event at the time of final decision calculating the
quantum of maintenance any amount if found to have been paid in excess,
the same will be adjusted .

13. In view of the above, the order passed by the Learned Magistrate is
modified to that extent that the opposite party /husband will continue to pay
rs 10,000/- as maintenance towards the minor from the date of passing order
by the Learned Co-ordinate Bench till final disposal of the 125 proceeding and
will clear the outstanding dues till November 2024 in terms of the order passed
by the learned trial court i;e rs 4000/- per month as directed. The husband is
directed to clear the dues within a period of 3 months from date in default the
petitioner will continue to proceed with the execution case.

14. The Learned Magistrate will allow the petitioner to file the supplementary
application along with all connected documents as placed before this court and
to serve the copy of the same to the opposite party /husband and will decide
the 125 proceeding at an earliest giving opportunity to both the parties. So far
the observation regarding grant of interim maintenance to the petitioner, this
court is not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the Learned
Magistrate.

15. Accordingly, this revisional application is allowed in part. The connected
application stands disposed of accordingly.


Page 5 of 6

16. All parties shall act on the server copies of this order duly downloaded
from the official website of this Court.

17. Criminal Section is directed to supply certified copies of this order to the
parties, if applied for, upon compliance of all necessary formalities.

[CHAITALI CHATTERJEE (DAS), J.]


Page 6 of 6