21.08.2026 Ct. No.655 Sl. No. 114 Subadip CO 4534 of 2025 Archisman Sarkar Vs. Natasha Sarkar & Anr. Mr. Sukumar Majumder. …for the petitioner 1. This revisional application has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the impugned order dated 08.09.2025 passed by the learned Trial Court, whereby the prayer of the petitioner for staying the execution and operation of the order relating to payment of maintenance/alimony pendente lite was rejected. 2. It appears from the impugned order that an application was filed on behalf of the respondent/wife complaining that, despite the order passed by the learned Court awarding maintenance/alimony pendente lite in her favour, the amount so directed had not been paid by the petitioner/husband. The respondent /wife accordingly sought appropriate relief before the learned Trial Court for implementation of the order relating to payment of maintenance. 3. The learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that an earlier revisional application, being C.O. No. 1307 of 2024, had been filed before this Court and the same was disposed of by a Co-ordinate Bench with a direction upon the learned Trial Court to 2 make an endeavour to dispose of the suit within a period of one year from the date of the order. It is, however, fairly apparent from the materials placed before this Court that the said order was concerned with expeditious disposal of the pending suit and did not relate to, or adjudicate upon, the petitioner's obligation to comply with the order directing payment of maintenance/alimony pendente lite to the respondent/wife. 4. Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner and upon perusal of the impugned order as well as the materials available on record, this Court finds no patent illegality, perversity or material irregularity in the order passed by the learned Trial Court warranting interference in exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The earlier order passed in C.O. No. 1307 of 2024, directing expeditious disposal of the suit, cannot, by itself, be construed as an order staying or suspending the operation of the subsisting order relating to payment of maintenance/alimony pendente lite. 5. The petitioner has also failed to demonstrate any circumstance which would justify staying the execution or enforcement of the order for payment of maintenance. The grievance of the respondent that the amount awarded by the Court has not been paid remains a matter requiring due compliance by the 3 petitioner, unless the said order is modified, stayed or otherwise varied by a competent Court. 6. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court finds no sufficient ground to interfere with the impugned order dated 08.09.2025. The revisional application, accordingly, does not merit any interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 7. Accordingly, the instant revisional application stands dismissed. 8. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. 9. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on payment of requisite fees. (Prasenjit Biswas, J.)