IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION Present:- HON’BLE JUSTICE CHAITALI CHATTERJEE (DAS). CRR NO.2375 of 2024 + IA NO:CRAN/1/2025 MRS. SARITA KUMARI & ANR. VS. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ANR. For the Petitioners : Mr. Sagnik Chatterjee, Adv., Mr. Sayan Mukherjee, Adv. For the O.P. NO.2 : Ms. Rajashree Tah, Adv., Ms. Trisha Rakshit, Adv., Ms. Aishwarya Datta, Adv. Last heard on : 31.08.2026 Judgement on : 31.08.2026 Uploaded on : 02.09.2026 CHAITALI CHATTERJEE (DAS), J. :- 1. Assailing an order of refusal passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Court, Durgapur dated March 19, 2024 in connection with a proceeding under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in respect of the prayer of the present petitioner no.1/wife for maintenance and granting a paltry sum of Rs.4,000/- as an interim maintenance to the minor child, the present revisional application has been filed. 2. At the time of admission of this revisional application, the learned coordinate Bench considered the contents of the petition as well as the supplementary affidavit filed before the Court and found that a certificate of enlistment issued by the concerned authority indicates that the opposite party/husband is the owner of the retail medical shop being Gayatri Medical and it was never disclosed. It is submitted that a false affidavit of assets and liabilities was placed before the learned Magistrate by the husband in order to suppress his actual income and on the basis of which, the learned court passed such order of interim maintenance of a meagre amount of Rs.4,000/- per month in favour of the child and refused the prayer for maintenance made by the wife, present petitioner no.1. 3. Direction was also given to the opposite party husband by the learned coordinate Bench to file Affidavit-in-Opposition and to the petitioners to file reply thereto. Both the parties have exchanged such affidavits. The learned coordinate Bench further directed the opposite party husband to continue to pay Rs.10,000/- per month for the minor child till the disposal of the revisional application. This order was passed on November 21, 2024. 4. The learned advocate representing the petitioners submits that the husband since thereafter did not pay any amount excepting an amount of Rs.15,000/- and thereby accrued a total outstanding of Rs.2,05,000/- as on August 31, 2026 towards maintenance in respect of the minor child. The opposite party husband has not even paid the amount of Rs.4,000/- as directed by the learned trial Court against which no challenge was made by the opposite party husband. It is further argued before this Court that the learned Judicial Magistrate failed to consider that the income being the personal knowledge of the husband, it was not possible for the wife to disclose the same and the learned Magistrate on the basis of such finding, refused the prayer of the petitioners to grant maintenance which is not sustainable in the eye of law. 5. Learned advocate representing the opposite party husband has filed the Affidavit-in-Opposition before this Court today whereby denied the contention raised by the petitioner. According to the learned advocate, the payment was made for an amount of Rs.4,000/- till November, 2024 and subsequently, the amount was enhanced to Rs.10,000/-, which was beyond his capacity to pay as his monthly income was only Rs.6,000/- per month. 6. Having heard the learned advocates for the parties and after going through the materials on record, it is evident that the opposite party husband failed to comply with the direction passed by the learned trial Court as well as by the Hon’ble coordinate Bench in making payment of the maintenance either to the extent of Rs.4,000/- or to the extent of Rs.10,000/- from November, 2024. There was no specific order restraining the husband for not making payment of rs 4000/- which amount was otherwise not challenged .Since the order granting maintenance to the child was not assailed by the husband it is to be presumed that he was not aggrieved by such order passed by the learned Magistrate and, therefore, he cannot evade his responsibility to pay the said admitted amount of Rs.4,000/- to the minor child in order to show his bonafide intention . 7. It can be found further from the submission of the learned advocate for the petitioner that an execution case has also been filed considering the maintenance amount of Rs.10,000/- as directed by this Court. No satisfactory explanation can be found from the learned advocate representing the opposite party husband for non-compliance of the order passed by the learned coordinate Bench and further, as to why he did not pay a single farthing excepting Rs.15,000/- to his minor child since November, 2024. 8. The order passed by the learned court of Magistrate that the affidavit of assets and liabilities filed by both the parties prima facie disclosed the income of the husband shown as Rs.6,000/- and the income of the petitioner wife shown as Rs.15,000/- per month. It is categorically submitted before this Court that the opposite party husband had suppressed his actual income as he did not disclose the medical store which is evident from the order passed by the learned coordinate Bench. The wife alleged about the business of home appliances and gift items and it is strenuously argued that the husband intentionally suppressed that business in order to reduce his income. However, this issue cannot be decided on the basis of the material available before this Court and the interim order was passed on March 19, 2024 only on the basis of the materials available before the Court on that date. Apparently, from the record, the three different types of source of income of the husband can be found other than his own statement of working as the supervisor of Kalimata Catering, earning Rs.6,000/. The medicine shop that is being run by him was found from the Certificate of Enlistment issued by Rampurhat Municipality in respect of an RTI application and the averment made by the wife regarding the business of home appliances and gift items. 9. On behalf of the petitioners, a supplementary affidavit has been filed before this Court giving detailed description of the other dealership business of automobile products. Since the husband had suppressed or did not disclose those businesses in the affidavit of assets and liabilities before the learned Magistrate, liberty is given to the learned Magistrate to deal with the same at the time of trial. Liberty is also given to the petitioners to file an application to that extent incorporating all necessary documents by way of affidavit before the learned court and to serve a copy of the same to the opposite party husband. 10. Learned Magistrate is directed to hear and dispose of the application filed under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure after affording adequate opportunity of hearing to both the parties and granting the husband an opportunity to file written objection to the application to be filed by the present petitioners. 11. In view of the above discussions, this Court is of considered view that the conduct of the husband manifests an attempt to evade his responsibility as father to maintain his child. He has stopped making payment of the amount which he never challenged and this demonstrates his reluctant attitude towards discharging his parental obligation to maintain child which cannot be appreciated. 12. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the petitioner would continue to pay the amount that was decided by the learned coordinate Bench to the tune of Rs.10,000/-till the final hearing of the maintenance application . However, it is made clear that in the event at the time of final decision calculating the quantum of maintenance any amount if found to have been paid in excess, the same will be adjusted . 13. In view of the above, the order passed by the Learned Magistrate is modified to that extent that the opposite party /husband will continue to pay rs 10,000/- as maintenance towards the minor from the date of passing order by the Learned Co-ordinate Bench till final disposal of the 125 proceeding and will clear the outstanding dues till November 2024 in terms of the order passed by the learned trial court i;e rs 4000/- per month as directed. The husband is directed to clear the dues within a period of 3 months from date in default the petitioner will continue to proceed with the execution case. 14. The Learned Magistrate will allow the petitioner to file the supplementary application along with all connected documents as placed before this court and to serve the copy of the same to the opposite party /husband and will decide the 125 proceeding at an earliest giving opportunity to both the parties. So far the observation regarding grant of interim maintenance to the petitioner, this court is not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the Learned Magistrate. 15. Accordingly, this revisional application is allowed in part. The connected application stands disposed of accordingly. Page 6 of 6 16. All parties shall act on the server copies of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court. 17. Criminal Section is directed to supply certified copies of this order to the parties, if applied for, upon compliance of all necessary formalities. [CHAITALI CHATTERJEE (DAS), J.]