18.08.2026 Item No.44 Court No.30 g.b. Calcutta High Court Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction Appellate Side CRR 5462 of 2024 Sagar Sadhukahn Vs. Payal Sadhukhan & Anr. Mr. Arnab Mukherjee Mrs. Madhurima Mukherjee ….For the Petitioner Mr. Debasis Kar Mr. Husen Mustafi …..For the Opposite Party 1. Affidavit of service filed be taken on record. 2. The revisional application has been preferred challenging an judgement and order dated 28.11.2024 passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, 3rd Court, Barrackpore, North 24 Parganas in Criminal Revision No. 4 of 2024 preferred by the Opposite Party/wife challenging the order dated 17.11.2023 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Court, Barrackpore, North Parganas in M. Case No. 838 of 2017. 3. Vide the impugned judgement and order dated 28.11.2024, the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, 3rd Court, Barrackpore, North 24 Parganas granted Rs. 2,000/- each per month for the opposite party/wife and child. 2 4. Being aggrieved by the said order the petitioner/husband has preferred the revisional application on the grounds that he is a person who suffers from speech impairment and works in a fire works factory earning only Rs.4,000/- per month. It is further submitted that the wife works in a parlour and has an income of her own other than the amount received by the wife from the Government scheme. It is thus submitted that the said amount of Rs.4,000/- be reduced. 5. Parties admit that the child is aged of 10 years and lives with his mother. 6. It is also submitted on behalf of the opposite party/wife that other than the speech impairment, the petitioner is an able-bodied person. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the wife/opposite party that this stand of the petitioner that the petitioner suffers from speech impairment has not been taken before any of the court. 7. Parties have filed their respective written notes and relied upon several judgements in support of their contention. 8. Considering the said facts and the quantum of maintenance, as granted in the judgement impugned, this Court finds that nothing lesser can be granted by this Court for maintenance when it relates to 3 maintenance of the wife and child aged of 10 years. This Court is, thus, not inclined to interfere with the impugned order and the revisional application thus stands dismissed. 9. The prayer of the learned counsel for the petitioner that he may be granted easy instalments to liquidate the arrear maintenance shall be considered sympathetically by the trial court when such a prayer is made. 10. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties after completion of all necessary formalities. (Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.)