No Logical Way To Grant Such Low Amount For 3 Persons & Leave Rest For Husband: Calcutta HC Holds Maintenance Of ₹4k To Be Unreasonable

The Calcutta High Court in a case has observed that an amount of Rs. 4,000/- as maintenance under Section 125 of Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) for three persons is not reasonable. The Court also said that it was in no way logical to grant such a low amount as interim maintenance for three persons and leave the balance for the husband.

The Court said this in a criminal revisional application preferred against an order passed by the Judicial Magistrate whereby the petition under Section 125 CrPC was rejected.

A Single Bench of Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul) held, “Of course at the time of final disposal of the case, all factors have to be taken into consideration by the learned Magistrate, but an amount of Rs. 4000/- for three persons is just not reasonable. But the order under challenge in this revision is where the learned Magistrate rejected the prayer under section 127 Cr.P.C. on the ground of it being premature, as the Case under section 125 Cr.P.C. was still pending final disposal.”

Advocate Animesh Bhattacharya represented the petitioner while Advocate Sreeparna Das represented the opposite party.

Factual Background -

A petition was filed praying for modification of the order under Section 125 CrPC granting interim maintenance of Rs. 2,000/- to the petitioner and Rs. 1,000/- each for two daughters i.e., total Rs. 4,000/- per month from the date of order. As per the petitioner, the quantum of interim maintenance granted upon hearing both the parties was inordinately low and inappropriate for the petitioner to maintain herself and her two minor daughters.

The petitioner being a housewife and a mother of two minor daughters was compelled to leave her matrimonial house without any belongings in 2017 and was forced to reside with her parents. The petitioner filed an application under Section 125 CrPC before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate at Howrah but the same was rejected. Hence, the petitioner approached the High Court.

The High Court in the above context noted, “The order under revision thus does not require the interference of this Court but taking into consideration all factors, the trial Court is to make all endeavor to dispose of the Misc. Case finally, keeping with the guidelines of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh vs Neha & Anr. (2021) 2 SCC 32, within three months from the date of this order.”

Accordingly, the High Court disposed of the revisional application.

Cause Title- Meghna Nandi (Maiti) v. Asit Nandi & Anr.

Click here to read/download the Judgment