IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION [CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR] PRESENT: THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SABYASACHI BHATTACHARYYA CRR/13/2026 IA NO. CRAN/2/2026 SMT. T. JYOTSANA AND ANOTHER … PETITIONER VS. SHRI SURYA RAO … OPPOSITE PARTY For the petitioner : Mr. Adarsh Ilango Ms. K. Bhawani For the opposite party : Mr. A. K. Chakraborty Heard on : April 20, 2026 Judgment on : April 20, 2026 SABYASACHI BHATTACHARYYA, J. Re: CRAN/2/2026 1. A germane point has been raised by learned counsel appearing for the opposite party as to the period of delay between the date of the impugned order of ad interim maintenance, that is, February 18, 2025, and August 04, 2025, when the matter was referred to mediation by the Trial Court on the prayer of the petitioner-wife, remaining unexplained insofar as the filing of the present application is concerned. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that initially a joint application for sending the matter to mediation was made by the 2 parties. It is further submitted that on August 4, 2025, both parties appeared in person and the opposite party-husband did not object to the matter being referred to mediation. It is further submitted that in the interregnum, the petitioner had sought adjournments on several occasions in the Trial Court only for the purpose of exploring the option of mediation. 3. As such, it is contended that there was no deliberate/intentional delay or negligence on the part of the petitioner in preferring the present revisional application. 4. Learned counsel for the opposite party vehemently opposes the prayer for condonation of delay and submits that since no explanation whatsoever has been furnished for the period between February 18, 2025 and August 04, 2025, the revisional application ought to be dismissed as time-barred. 5. Upon a careful consideration of the arguments of the parties and from the materials before the Court, it transpires that the petitioner is justified in pointing out that although no revisional application was preferred against the present impugned order in the interregnum, that is from February 18, 2025 till August 04, 2025, since on August 04, 2025 both parties were recorded to have been personally present before the Trial Court and no objection is recorded to have been taken to the efforts of mediation initiated by the petitioner-wife on the part of the opposite party-husband, it can readily be presumed that such efforts were going in the interregnum as well. 3 6. In any event, since the alternative dispute resolution mechanism of mediation is encouraged in cases of matrimonial dispute, the attempts at mediation is a valid ground for condonation of the delay in preferring the appeal by taking a lenient approach with regard to the same. Moreover, the reference of the matter to mediation on August 04, 2025 could not have been a sudden development and there must have been a build-up on the part of both parties prior to the said date with regard to mediation, which is also evident from the fact that both the parties were personally present in Court on August 04, 2025 and there was no objection by either of the parties or their counsel for the matter to be referred to mediation. 7. Keeping in view of the above aspect of the matter, CRAN/2/2026 is allowed on contest, thereby condoning the delay in preferring CRR/13/2026. 8. There will be no order as to costs. Re: CRR/13/2026 9. The present challenge has been preferred against an order dated February 18, 2025 passed in Miscellaneous Case No. 31 of 2023, being an application at the behest of the petitioner-wife, seeking maintenance under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for herself and the minor daughter of the parties. 10. By the impugned order, the learned Judge, Family Court, Andaman and Nicobar Islands has granted maintenance to the tune of 4 Rs.6,000/- per month for the petitioner no.1-wife and Rs.2000/- per month to the minor daughter of the parties, who is now about 6 years old. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner-wife argues that apart from the learned Trial Judge not adverting to the materials on record and the impugned order being without reason, from the averments made in the maintenance application, it would be evident that the minor daughter of the parties is studying in a school and her monthly expenses, as borne out by the pleadings of the petitioner, would be to the tune of approximately Rs.6,000/- per month in respect of her school expenses, Rs.2,000/- per month for autorickshaw charges and about Rs.1,000/- per month for medical expenses, more particularly, since the minor child is suffering from Grade 3 Bilateral Tonsillitis and has to be treated regularly for the same. Thus, the meager amount granted for the minor child by the learned Trial Judge is insufficient. 12. Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party-husband vehemently opposes the petitioner’s prayer and contends that the petitioner-wife took away the minor child forcibly behind the back of the opposite party-husband. The minor daughter was initially studying in a different school and was admitted unilaterally by the petitioner–wife to the Laksh Public School. However, after getting a job in the year 2024, the child was taken away from the said school by the petitioner and admitted to a government school at Pahalgam in Mayabunder being the Pahalgam Senior Secondary School. It is submitted that the expenses in 5 a government school are minimal and/or negligible and as such, the claim of the petitioner on such count is incorrect. 13. It is further submitted that in view of the conduct of the petitioner, who has, without sufficient reason, refused to live with the opposite party-husband, she is not entitled to any maintenance whatsoever within the contemplation of Section 125 (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Learned counsel appearing for the husband- opposite party further argues that the husband is all along willing to get back the wife and the minor daughter of the parties and has already instituted a suit under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, bearing Matrimonial Suit No. 152 of 2023. 14. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 15. Section 125 (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure pertains to the entitlement of the wife to get maintenance on the grounds stipulated therein and is not applicable strictly to maintenance for the minor child of the parties. 16. However, during arguments, on the query of the Court, learned counsel for the opposite party-husband takes instruction from his client, the opposite party, who is personally present in Court. The opposite party, through counsel, informs the Court that he is agreeable to pay a monthly amount of Rs. 8,000/- as maintenance for his minor daughter. 17. The Court appreciates such gesture. In any event, taking into account the fact that the minor daughter of the parties is now studying 6 in a government school and the school expenses would be minimal, in the opinion of the Court the amount of Rs.8000/- is sufficient to meet the requirement of the minor daughter of the parties for the present. 18. In view of such fair submission made by the opposite party, CRR/13/2026 is disposed of by directing the opposite party-husband to pay to the petitioner-wife a monthly amount of Rs. 8000/- for the maintenance of the minor daughter of the parties, subject to the outcome of the proceeding under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 19. It is made clear that the above direction is only an ad hoc arrangement and it will be open to the learned Trial Court to pass appropriate orders regarding maintenance at the time of final disposal of the proceeding under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 20. It is further clarified that insofar as the quantum of Rs.6,000/- per month, granted as maintenance to the petitioner-wife is concerned, this Court has not varied or modified the same, since no challenge has been preferred by the opposite party-husband to such component of the impugned order, nor has the petitioner-wife sought enhancement of such quantum. 21. For the sake of clarity, it is reiterated that the opposite party- husband shall now go on paying a total amount of Rs.14,000/- per month (Rs.6000/- for the wife as per the order of the Trial Court plus Rs.8000/- for the minor daughter of the parties as per the order of this 7 Court) till the disposal of the application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 22. The current maintenance amount at the above rates shall be paid by the 7th day of each month for such month, the first of which instalments shall commence from the month of May, 2026. The arrear amounts of maintenance shall be paid at the above rates from the date of filing of the maintenance application till April, 2026, by 6 equal monthly instalments, payable also by the 7th day of each month starting from May, 2026. 23. All such payments shall be made by the opposite party by direct online transfer to the bank account of the petitioner-wife, the relevant particulars of which shall be supplied in writing by the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner in this Court to his counterpart appearing for the opposite party by the end of this week. 24. There will be no order as to costs. 25. Urgent Photostat certified copies of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities. ( SABYASACHI BHATTACHARYYA, J. )