Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Smt. Bulti De(Das) vs Unknown on 16 February, 2026
16.02.2026
Item No.95
Ct. No. 34
nb
CRR 2199 of 2023
In the matter of: Smt. Bulti De(Das).
...... petitioner.
Mr. Gobinda Chandra Baidya,
Mr. Bobinda Baidya,
Mr. Probhas Mondal,
....For the Petitioner
1.
This revisional application has been filed for setting aside
the judgment and order dated March 17, 2023 passed by the
Judicial Magistrate, 6th Court, Paschim Medinipur in Misc. Case
No. MR 206/2021 under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure.
2. The petitioner is the legally married wife of the opposite
party no.2, which was solemnized on March 13, 2019 according
Hindu Rights and Customs and they started to lead conjugal life
as husband and wife and the said marriage was consummated.
Subsequently, on account of marital discord the relations turned
sour. A number of proceeding initiated between the parties
against each other. In connection with the proceeding under
Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed by the wife
an amount Rs.40, 000/- was claimed by the present
petitioner/wife as maintenance and the learned Court of
Magistrate by passing the impugned order refused such prayer
2
with the observation that the Court is not in a position to
conclude as to whether the petitioner left matrimonial home and
whether the opposite party/husband failed and neglected to
maintain his wife.
3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner
that the opposite party no.2 admitted to be an employee of TCS
in his written objection and his monthly earning was mentioned
as of earning Rs.32,000/- but despite repeated direction passed
by the learned Magistrate, he did not file his affidavit of asset
and liability. The present petitioner disclosed by way of filing
affidavit of asset that she is a home maker having no income.
The husband initially filed a suit for restitution of conjugal right
and after the same being dismissed for default, filed a suit for
declaration that the marriage is null and void.
4. It is submitted by the learned advocate that being
aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Magistrate refusing
to pay any maintenance this revisional application was filed and
she is not getting any amount as maintenance as on that. The
further hearing of the said proceeding is also pending on account
of pendency of this revisional application.
5. None appears on behalf of the opposite party no.2 and
from the record; it transpires that on December 10, 2025 an
advocate claiming to be authorized to appear on behalf of the
opposite party no.2 prayed for time on the ground of filing
3
vokalatnama within the week. Subsequently did not turn and no
fresh vakalatnama can be found from the record.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and careful
perusal of the materials on record, prima facie, it appears that
the marriage was not challenged before the court of learned
Magistrate while considering the application under Section 125
of the Code of Criminal Procedure .Admittedly, an application for
restitution of conjugal right was filed by the husband against the
present petitioner which further admit the factum of marriage.
The subsequent suit was filed under Section 12(1)(b)(c)(d) of the
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 on the ground of nullity of marriage
after the previous suit got dismiss for default . This
contradictory stand taken by the opposite party no. 2/husband,
prima facie, reflects that the husband is trying to avoid his
responsibility to maintain his wife. There are numerous
proceeding pending between the parties that does not, prima
facie, takes away the responsibility of the opposite
party/husband to maintain his wife if she is unable to maintain
herself according to the status of the husband. Nothing has been
reflected from the order passed by the learned Magistrate as to
why the mandatory direction passed by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the case Rajnesh Vs. Neha (AIR 2021 SUPREME
COURT 569) has not been complied with by the husband when
the husband/opposite party himself admitted in his affidavit-in-
opposition claiming to be an employee of TCS. This conduct on
4
the part of the husband is a glaring example to suppress the
truth from the Court i.e. his real and actual income. Whether
the present petitioner being the wife voluntarily left matrimonial
home or was driven out by the opposite party/husband can be
decided in course of trial at time of adducing evidence and the
learned Magistrate could not ascertain such fact, which is very
much apparent from his opinion passed in the order impugned.
7. Despite that the learned Magistrate considered the income
of the husband as Rs.32,000/- and the income of the present
wise as Rs.52,000/- only on the basis of the submission made by
the husband. Learned Magistrate further considered that
Rs.2,000/- only is being paid to the present petitioner by the
husband since 2021 but failed to consider that no account was
provided by the husband to which he was paying the same.
8. In the decision of Rajnesh vs Neha the Hon’ble Supreme
court took note that Justice Krishna Iyer in his judgment in
Captain Ramesh Chander Kaushal v Mrs. Veena Kaushal &
Ors.1 held that the object of maintenance laws is :
“9. This provision is a measure of social justice and
specially enacted to protect women and children
and falls within the constitutional sweep of Article
15(3) reinforced by Article 39. We have no doubt
that sections of statutes calling for construction by
courts are not petrified print but vibrant words with
social functions to fulfil. The brooding presence of
the constitutional empathy for the weaker sections
like women and children must inform interpretation
5
if it has to have social relevance. So viewed, it is
(1978) 4 SCC 70.
9. Learned Magistrate should have considered that the the
object and purpose to introduce this provision in Code of
Criminal Procedure was to prevent vagrancy and destitution .It is
not a charity or whims and caprice of the husband to pay the
maintenance to the wife and is statutory obligation upon the
husband to pay such amount.
10. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the observation
made by the Learned Magistrate having not in consonance with
the intend and purpose of the provision enumerated therein and
is liable to be set aside.
11. The learned Magistrate is, therefore directed to hear the
petition afresh after giving opportunity of hearing to both the
parties. The learned court must ensure the affidavit of asset and
liabilities to be submitted by the husband in terms of mandatory
direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
12. Till such time, the husband/opposite party is directed to
pay amount of Rs.10,000/-as interim maintenance with effect
from this date to be paid within seventh of each month until
further orders from the learned court ascertaining the
maintenance .However such amount will be adjusted with the
order to be passed by the learned Magistrate after hearing afresh
giving opportunity of hearing to both the parties .It is made clear
the Learned court will pass the order without being influenced by
any of the observation made herein.
6
13. All parties shall act on the server copies of this order duly
downloaded from the official website of this Court.
(CHAITALI CHATTERJEE (DAS), J.)
