JUDGEMENT
Prasenjit Mandal, J. -
(1.)THESE two applications are taken up for hearing analogously since the two applications have arisen out of the same matrimonial suit being Matrimonial Suit No.11 of 2007 pending before the learned Additional District Judge, Twelfth Court, Alipore.
(2.)THE wife is the petitioner of the application being C.O. No.2886 of 2010 and she has come up against the order no.53 dated June 14, 2010 and the order no.52 dated July 7, 2010 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Twelfth Court, Alipore in the said matrimonial suit. THE other application being C.O. No.3166 of 2010 has arisen out of the order dated 53 dated September 14, 2010 passed by the same learned Additional District Judge in the said matrimonial suit.
For convenience, I am taking up the C.O. No.2886 of 2010 first.
The wife/petitioner herein is the respondent of the Matrimonial Suit No.11 of 2007 under the Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 filed by the husband/opposite party herein. The said matrimonial suit was filed by the husband before the learned District Judge, Hooghly. It was transferred to the Court of the learned District Judge at Alipore at the instance of the wife on an application under Section 24 of the C.P.C. before this Hon?ble Court and by an order dated December 13, 2004 in the C.O. No.2682 of 2003, the learned District Judge or the learned transferee Court from him, was directed to dispose of the suit within a period of three weeks from the date of communication of that order. But, it is unfortunate to note that since then the matter is still pending.
(3.)THE grievance of the petitioner is that he was granted alimony by an order dated May 20, 2006 to the extent of Rs.1,500/- per month for herself and Rs.1,000/- per month for her minor son. In the meantime, the income of the husband/opposite party herein who is a police officer, has been increased to a considerable extent and for that reason she prayed for enhancement of the alimony. By the impugned order, the learned Trial Judge has enhanced the amount by Rs.500/- for each of the two, that is, Rs.2,000/- per month for the wife/petitioner and Rs.1,500/- per month for the son with effect from the date of filing of the application for enhancement of the alimony. Being not satisfied with such amount, the wife has filed this revisional application for enhancement. Now, the question is whether the learned Trial Judge was justified in enhancing the said amount.
Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on going through the materials on record, I find that though the order of alimony was initially passed on May 20, 2006, the prayer for enhancement was sought for in 2010 that too when the matrimonial proceeding is going to be disposed of soon. Evidence of the husband has been closed and the matrimonial proceeding is pending for recording the evidence on behalf of the wife/petitioner. But, it is the wife who is taking adjournments and she has prayed for enhancement of the alimony at the close stage of the said matrimonial proceeding. However, by the impugned order the learned
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.