24.08.2026 Item No.16 Ct. No. 652 RP CO 3957 OF 2025 + IA No.CAN 1 of 2026 SUPROTIM ROY VS PRIYANKA SINGHA ROY Mr. Sayan Chattopadhyay …… For Petitioner Mr. Tauhid Khan Mr. Sirsendu Sinha Roy …… For Opposite Party 1. An order passed by the learned District Judge, Hooghly dated 9th July, 2025 in Misc. Case No.155 of 2024 is under challenge in the instant revision. 2. The said order relates to Misc. Case No.155 of 2024 in connection with a matrimonial suit, being MAT 08 of 2022. 3. In the said order the learned District Judge, Hooghly has directed the present petitioner/husband for payment of Rs.25,000/- per month as maintenance, under Section 36 of the Special Marriage Act, in favour of the opposite party/wife and two minor daughters of the parties. 4. The petitioner’s grievance, as submitted by the learned advocate appearing for him, is with 2 respect to alleged non-consideration of the amount of maintenance being remitted at present by the petitioner, to the wife, pursuant to an order of the Magistrate in a proceeding under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 5. Learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner already is remitting an amount of Rs.11,000/- per month towards the wife/children as maintenance in connection with a proceeding under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 6. It is submitted further that in the impugned order as above, the learned District Judge, Hooghly has not considered the said payment which is being remitted regularly by the petitioner towards maintenance of opposite party and minor children of the parties. Therefore, the amount of money to the tune of Rs.25,000/- per month as directed by the District Judge to be paid by the petitioner to the wife under Section 36 of the Special Marriage Act, has been termed as exorbitant. 7. Learned advocate for the opposite party/wife is present. He submits about the petitioner’s monthly income from salary to be Rs.58,000/- 3 whereas other income from landed property as well as electronic goods shop. According to him, there is no infirmity in the directions passed by the learned District Judge in order dated 9th July, 2025. 8. It appears prima facie that though the learned Court has taken into consideration submissions of the respective parties as regards monthly income of the petitioner/husband, but has not, by its own, come to a finding as to the monthly income of the petitioner/husband. It is further found that the fact of the petitioner regularly remitting the amount of Rs.11,000/- already in favour of the opposite party/wife and children as maintenance in connection with a criminal case under Section 125 CrPC, has been taken note of by the learned District Judge while passing the impugned order. 9. What is notable that in the impugned order while determining the amount of maintenance under Section 36 of the Special Marriage Act, the Court has not considered the amount which is already being paid by the husband to the wife and children, may be in terms of order of some other Court, in some other proceeding. 4 10. In considering the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh versus Neha & Anr. reported in 2021 (2) SCC 324 the same ought to have been an imperative exercise to be made by the learned trial Court. In this regard, it is necessary that following portion of the judgment may be quoted, as hereinbelow. “128.1.(i) Where successive claims for maintenance are made by a party under different statutes, the court would consider an adjustment or set- off, of the amount awarded in the previous proceeding(s), while determining whether any further amount is to be awarded in the subsequent proceeding. 128.2(ii) It is made mandatory for the applicant to disclose the previous proceeding and the orders passed therein, in the subsequent proceeding. 128.3(iii) If the order passed in the previous proceeding(s) requires any modification or variation, it would be required to be done in the same proceeding.” 11. In view of finding and direction of the Supreme Court as above and also apperrent non-compliance thereof by the learned trial Court, in the said impugned order, this Court finds it proper to set aside the impugned order dated 9th July, 2025 of the learned District 5 Judge, Hooghly passed in Misc. Case No.155 of 2024 arising out of MAT 08 of 2022 and remand back the matter to the learned District Judge, for passing order afresh in Misc. Case No.155 of 2024, after due consideration of the amount of maintenance already being paid in favour of the present opposite party/wife, as directed by the Magistrate, in a separate criminal proceeding. 12. Let such order be passed by the learned District Judge, Hooghly within a period of four weeks from the date of communication of a copy of this order. 13. Let it be mentioned, however, that if upon examination, the Court is satisfied about non- payment or irregular payment of the maintenance amount by the husband in connection with the said criminal case, to the tune of Rs.11,000/- per month, the Court may not take the same into consideration, by citing appropriate reason, to determine the amount of maintenance in the case pending before it under Section 36 of the Special Marriage Act. 14. The civil revision and the connected application are, thus, disposed of. 6 15. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be delivered to the learned advocates for the parties, upon compliance of all formalities. (Rai Chattopadhyay, J.)