Supreme Court – Daily Orders
Piyali Ray Chatterjee vs Rudra Narayan Ray on 16 February, 2026
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2026
(Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No.11439 of 2024)
PIYALI RAY CHATTERJEE & ANR. APPELLANTS
A1 : PIYALI RAY CHATTERJEE
A2 : PUNYA PRASOON RAY
VERSUS
RUDRA NARAYAN RAY RESPONDENT
O R D E R
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Leave granted.
3. The present appeal is directed against the impugned order
dated 22.01.2024 passed by the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi in
Criminal Revision No.172 of 2022, by which the order dated
21.01.2022 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court,
Dumka granting maintenance of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand)
per month to the appellant no.1-wife has been set aside whereas,
the maintenance amount of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand)
granted to the appellant no.2-minor son has been enhanced to
Signature Not Verified
Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) per month.
Digitally signed by
SAPNA BISHT
Date: 2026.02.19
17:13:40 IST
Reason:
4. At the outset, before the learned counsels addressing us on
merit, the Court wanted to elicit their view with regard to there
2
being any chances of reconciliation especially, in view of a minor
son-appellant no.2 being born to them, and more importantly that
the entire allegation of respondent-husband against the appellant
no.1 i.e., his wife was that she refused to take care of his mother
and grand mother and was also insisting that they be separated from
him. Further, the Court put a query directly to learned counsel for
the respondent with regard to the categorical stand taken by the
appellant no.1 that she had never at any point of time put such
condition and that the reason for her to leave the matrimonial home
was that the respondent had installed a CCTV camera in the bedroom,
which was unacceptable to her and ultimately, the final stand was
that she is ready to go and discharge the role of an Indian wife
and also daughter-in-law in her matrimonial home without any pre-
conditions.
5. On a response sought from learned counsel for the respondent,
there is a categorical stand that the respondent shall not be
taking back the appellants. Thus, we were left with no option but
to go into the merits of the matter.
6. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that from the
pleadings of the respondent in a case before the Trial Court, a
categorical stand has been taken by the respondent himself that he
belonged to a reputed family of the town and that he was a
professor in a Medical College and further that he has a
flourishing practice in the town, there was absolutely no occasion
for the High Court to interfere in the quantum of maintenance in
view of the position of the parties. It was submitted that the
appellant no.1 does not have any job or a separate means of income
3
and presently, she is living in the same city nearby to that of the
respondent’s house with her son.
7. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that his salary
is Rs.68,000/- (Rupees Sixty Eight Thousand) per month and thus,
having to pay Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) per month
as maintenance towards appellant no.2-minor son as per the impugned
order of the High Court and another Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen
Thousand) per month, by way of an interim arrangement, as a
condition for granting bail to him in a domestic violence case by
the High Court, the total amount comes to Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty
Thousand) per month which itself, is exorbitant. At this stage,
again, we asked learned counsel for the respondent to assist the
Court as to the reason why the appellants cannot be taken back in
the house of the respondent, the answer again was that after eight
years, the respondent has absolutely no attachment/love for the
appellants. It was further submitted that because of multiple
litigations between the parties, the appellant no.1 cannot be
allowed to come back to the matrimonial home.
8. Learned counsel for the respondent has also drawn the
attention of the Court to the counter affidavit filed by the
respondent wherein, in paragraph no.62, the judgment of this Court
in Sudeep Chaudhary v. Radha Chaudhary AIR 1999 SC 536 has been
quoted where at paragraph no.6, the following has been stated”-
“6. We are of the view that the High Court was in error.
The amount awarded under Section 125 of the CrPC for
maintenance was adjustable against the amount awarded in
the matrimonial proceedings and was not to be given over
and above the same.”
4
9. We indicate that the said judgment has no bearing in the
present case for the reason that in the facts and circumstances of
that case, the maintenance was awarded in two different
proceedings; one for maintenance and another in the matrimonial
proceedings, which was held not permissible.
10. In the present case, an amount of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen
Thousand) per month as ad interim victim compensation to the
appellant no.1 was in lieu of granting bail to the respondent in a
case in which the respondent has been made an accused. Thus, no
parallel can be drawn from the said judgment and it is of no help
to the respondent in the facts and circumstances of the present
case.
11. Having considered the matter in its entirety and taking into
consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case and
the material on record, we find that the respondent has not been
honest in his conduct with the appellants. First and foremost, we
take note of the pleadings in the petition filed by the respondent
before the Court of learned District Judge, Bankura under Section
10 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. In the said petition, the
respondent has spoken highly about his family history and the
reputation it carries and most importantly, it is written that the
respondent’s family history is highly reputed with “affluent
credential” within the District of Bankura. It has further been
indicated that under such background, they wanted a daughter-in-law
coming from a lower social category so that she could discharge her
duties and responsibility and obligations towards the respondent,
5
being her husband, and it has also been stated that he was a most
busy person. We further find that except for the allegations that
the appellant no.1 started indicating and behaving in a manner
which disclosed that she was reluctant to share the responsibility
towards the respondent and other two old fellows that is the mother
and grand mother of the respondent.
12. At this moment, we pause to assess the income of the
respondent. Admittedly, at least on paper, he has a monthly salary
of Rs.68,000/- (Rupees Sixty Eight Thousand). However, this is only
part of the income as he himself has stated that he comes from a
highly reputed family with affluent credential means that he is in
a comfortable financial position. In fact, it is written that
besides holding job as Assistant Professor of Bankura Sammilani
Medical College and Hospital, it is written “as well as who has
busy-most reputed private medical practice within Bankura District
and adjoining part of Purulia District”. Thus, we have absolutely
no doubt in our mind that he has enough resources to pay the
maintenance amount which the Trial Court had awarded i.e.,
Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand) per month for appellant no.1
but also, the enhanced maintenance amount towards the appellant
no.2, his son of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) per
month as awarded by the High Court.
13. For the reasons aforesaid, the appeal is allowed. The
respondent is held liable to pay an amount of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees
Thirty Thousand) per month to the appellant no.1 and Rs.25,000/-
(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) per month to the appellant no.2. The
same shall be from the date of filing of petition by the appellant
6
no.1. Needless to state that it shall be in addition to whatever
amount any Court has fixed in any other proceedings.
14. Before parting, we may indicate that for the larger interest
of justice, if at all, the respondent is agreeable to a just
settlement, the present order shall not come in the way of the
concerned Court exploring such avenue.
15. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
……………………..………………………………………………J.
[AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH]
…………………………………………………………………………J.
[R. MAHADEVAN]
NEW DELHI
16th FEBRUARY, 2026
7
ITEM NO.33 COURT NO.12 SECTION II-A
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s).11439/2024
[Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 22-01-2024
in CRR No.172/2022 passed by the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi]
PIYALI RAY CHATTERJEE & ANR. Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
RUDRA NARAYAN RAY Respondent(s)
(IA No. 176448/2024 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT
IA No. 176447/2024 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.
IA No. 224170/2024 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.
IA No. 224167/2024 – PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL
DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES)
Date : 16-02-2026 This matter was called for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVANFor Petitioner(s) Mr. Rajiv Shankar Dwivedi, Adv.
Ms. Tulika Mukherjee, AOR
Mr. Beenu Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Venkat Narayan, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Utkarsh Singh, Adv.
Mr. Pradeep Yadav, Adv.
Mr. Durga Dutt, AOR
O R D E R
Leave granted.
2. The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order.
3. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
(SAPNA BISHT) (ANJALI PANWAR)
COURT MASTER (SH) ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
(Signed order is placed on the file)
