In
the Court of the Learned Additional District & Session Judge, 2nd
Court, Uluberia, Howrah
Criminal
Appeal No. 4 of 2021
In
the matter of;
Sri
Arnab De, & Others,
_____Appellants
-
Versus –
The
State of West Bengal & Anr.
______Opposite Parties
Written
Notes of Argument
On
behalf of the Appellants
The present appeal is
challenging the proprietary of the impugned Order dated 21-08-2021, passed in
Misc. Case no. 174 of 2020 by the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Uluberia, Howrah, which directed the husband Arnab De to pay maintenance
allowance as interim monetary relief of Rs. 18,000/- (Rupees Eighteen Thousand)
only per month to the wife Tithi De Adhikary.
The wife Tithi De
Adhikary was employed in Tata Consultancy Services, and thereby she acquired
her Gross Salary of Rs. 16,560/- (Rupees Sixteen Thousand and Five Hundred and
Sixty) only and thereby the Net Income in hand as of Rs. 13,732/- (Rupees
Thirteen Thousand and Seven Hundred Thirty Two) only, has been acquired by her.
Presently, she produced a copy of letter dated 14th day of June’
2023, which speaks about acceptance of her resignation letter dated 1st
June’ 2023. The reason of such resignation has not been assigned therein,
therefore it is well understood that she resigned voluntarily from her
employment.
The Wife Tithi De
Adhikary, is well qualified as B.Sc. Bio Science in 2005, from Calcutta
University, and presently pursuing her LL.B. classes, having well experiences
in her employment.
The Wife Tithi De
Adhikary, have no dependent to maintain, as her family consists of her father,
mother, Elder Brother who is married, and her younger Sister. Therefore the
Elder Brother is solely responsible to take care of his father, mother, and
sister with his wife and child if any.
The husband Arnab De
having Educational Qualification as BCA, working for gain in M/s. Mphasis
Private Limited, and thereby acquired Gross Salary as of Rs, 95,000/- (Rupees
Ninety Five Thousand) only, per month, and acquired Net Income as Rs. 78,308/-
(Rupees Seventy Eight Thousand and Three Hundred Eight) only, after statutory
deductions. His father & mother are his dependent, whom he is responsible
to maintain.
The Educational
Qualification of the husband and the wife are at par, and presently she
pursuing LL.B. Classes and after completion of the same her educational
qualification will be higher than the husband’s qualification. She resigned
voluntarily from her services and engaged herself in pursuing LL.B. Classes are
clearly gave the circumstances of her ability to maintain herself sufficiently.
She should not claim any maintenance sitting idle.
If wife is in
possession of qualification it does not ipso facto mean that she did not make
effort to get the job and for that reason to disallow the maintenance. The qualification
of B.Sc. Bio Science in 2005, from Calcutta University, is sufficient as she
was employed in Tata Consultancy Services, wherefrom she resigned recently in
the month of June’ 2023.
In view of this, the
question arises as to in what way Section 20 of the Act has to be interpreted.
Whether a spouse who has capacity of earning but chooses to remain idle, should
be permitted to saddle other spouse with his or her expenditure ? Whether such
spouse should be permitted to get monetary relief at higher rate from other
spouse in such condition ?
Section 20 has been
enacted for the purpose of providing a monetary assistance to such spouse who
is incapable of supporting himself or herself in spite of sincere efforts made
by him or herself. A spouse who is well qualified to get the service
immediately with less efforts is not expected to remain idle to squeeze out, to
milk out the other spouse by relieving him of his or her own purse by a cut in
the nature of monetarily relief.
The law does not
expect the increasing number of such idle persons who by remaining in the arena
of legal battles, try to squeeze out the adversory by implementing the
provisions of law suitable to their purpose.
In the present case Tithi
De Adhikary is a well-qualified woman possessing qualification like B. Sc. Bio
Science in 2005, from Calcutta University, Till June’ 2023 she was serving in Tata
Consultancy Services. It impliedly means that she was possessing sufficient
experience. How such a lady can remain without service ?
It really puts a big
question which is to be answered by Tithi De Adhikary with sufficient congent
and believable evidence by proving that in spite of sufficient efforts made by
her, she was not able to get service and, therefore, she is unable to support
herself.
A lady who is
fighting Domestic petition filed for monetarily relief, can not be permitted to
sit idle and to put her burden on the husband for demanding maintenance allowance.
Section 20 is not
meant for creating an army of such idle persons who would be sitting idle
waiting for a 'dole' to be awarded by her husband who has got a grievance
against her and who has gone to the Court for seeking a relief against her. The
case may be vice-versa also. If a husband well qualified, sufficient enough to
earn, sits idle and puts his burden on the wife and waits for a 'dole' to be
awarded by remaining entangled in litigation. That is also not permissible.
The law does not help
indolents as well idles so also does not want an army of self-made lazy idles.
Everyone has to earn for the purpose of maintenance of himself or herself,
atleast, has to make sincere efforts in that direction. If this criteria is not
applied, if this attitude is not adopted, there would be a tendency growing
amongst such litigants to prolong such litigation and to milk out the adversory
who happens to be a spouse, once dear but far away after an emerging of
litigation. If such army is permitted to remain in existence, there would be no
sincere efforts of amicable settlements because the lazy spouse would be very
happy to fight and frustrate the efforts of amicable settlement because he
would be reaping the money in the nature of maintenance allowance, and would
prefer to be happy in remaining idle and not bothering himself or herself for
any activity to support and maintain himself or herself.
That cannot be
treated to be aim, goal of Section 20 of the Act. It is indirectly against healthiness
of the society. It has enacted for needy persons who in spite of sincere
efforts and sufficient efforts are unable to support and maintain themselves
and are required to fight out the litigation jeopardizing their hard earned
income by toiling working hours.
In
the case in hand wife is not entitle to get any maintenance from her husband.
Judicial
References, relied on;
1.Bhushan Kumar Meen Versus Mansi Meen @ Harpreet Kaur, (2010) 1 SCC 372
2.Nisha Jain Versus Amit
Jain, Mat.App.(FC) No.106/2015, decided on 24.8.2016 by the High Court of Delhi [2016
SCC ONLINE DEL 4866]
3.Smt Mamta Jaiswal Versus Rajesh Jaiswal, Civil Revision N.1290/99, decided on 24.3.2000
by the High Court of Madhya
Pradesh (Indore Bench) [2001 HINDULR 2 228]
4.Farzana
Ansari Versus Abid Ali Ansari, Criminal Revision Application No.38/2013, decided on
24.2.2014 by High Court of Bombay at Goa.[
2014 ALLMR CRI 1681]
=========================XXXX===========================
No comments:
Post a Comment