Chandra Mohan Das v. Tapati Das

Harish Tandon, J.:— The challenge is basically founded on the point that the Court ought to have adjusted an amount awarded in a proceeding under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure while determining the quantum of maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

2. The learned advocate for the petitioner appears to have inspired from the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Sudip Chowdhury v. Radha Chowdhury reported in 1999 Cr.L.J 466. In the said judgment, the challenge was made to an order by which the High Court held that the Magistrate was in error in directing the adjustment of the maintenance awarded under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the amount of maintenance granted under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. It was held that the Court ought to have considered the amount awarded to the wife on account of an maintenance in a proceeding under the different Acts at the time of determining the quantum of maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

3. There is no quarrel to the aforesaid proposition. It appears from the impugned order that the Court while determining the quantum of maintenance, was conscious of such proposition of law as it directed the amount determined under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act towards maintenance to be paid in addition to the quantum of maintenance awarded in a proceeding under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

4. Since the expression ‘adjustment’ is absent in the operative portion of the order, it inspired the learned Advocate of the petitioner to challenge the said order deriving inspiration from the judgment of the Supreme Court as quoted above.

5. From the meaningful reading of the impugned order, there is no hesitation in my mind that the Court was convinced and firm that the wife was entitled to maintenance at Rs. 6,800/- per month and for such reason directed the husband to pay the sum of Rs. 5,000/- which is exclusive of the quantum of maintenance awarded in a proceeding under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. There are different expressions used for arriving at the same conclusion. The absence of a word ‘adjustment’ cannot invalidate the said order as opposed to the ratio laid down in the above report.

6. This Court, however, clarifies the position with a view to dispel the doubts raised in the mind of the petitioner that the petitioner was directed to pay a maintenance to the wife at Rs. 6,800/- per month commencing from the date as indicated in the impugned order and such sum shall include the maintenance granted in a proceeding under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

7. This Court, therefore, does not feel that anything more is required to be clarified.

8. The revisional application is thus disposed of. No order as to costs.