31.08.2026 Sl. No.10. D/L. Mithun. Ct.No.29. CRR/1139/2026 with CRAN 1 of 2026, CRAN 2 of 2026, CRAN 3 of 2026 Prabir Modak Vs. Mukti Modak Sen Mr. Debasis Kar, Mr. Arka Tilak Bhadra …for the petitioner Mr. Sankar Paul, Ms. Shipra Roy …for the opposite party The petitioner preferred an application under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking dissolution of the marriage between the petitioner and the opposite party. In the said proceeding, the opposite party/wife filed an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act claiming alimony pendente lite and upon hearing learned Counsel appearing on behalf of both the parties, the concerned Additional District Judge was pleased to direct the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.8,000/- per month along with litigation cost of Rs.15,000/-. Thereafter, the opposite party herein/wife filed another application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking maintenance and the concerned Magistrate by an order dated 16.09.2025 directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- per month from the date of filing of the petition as an interim measure. In the instant application, learned Counsel for the petitioner assailing the said order contended that concerned Magistrate while 2 passing the order under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., did not consider that already an order of alimony pendente lite has been passed in Matrimonial Suit No.1574 of 2023 by the concerned Additional District Judge whereby he directed the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.8,000/- per month to the opposite party. He further submits that the Court below failed to appreciate that the petitioner has to maintain a son aged about 12 years from his earlier marriage who is school going and a differently abled brother who is a completely unemployed person, being not in a position to work and thereby he has to spend at least Rs.10,000/- per month for them. Therefore, the petitioner is supposed to pay the higher amount, i.e., Rs.8,000/- per month towards maintenance and the amount awarded under Section 125 Cr.P.C. amounting to Rs.3,000/- per month is subject to adjustment of the amount already awarded. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party submits that the order was passed in presence of learned Counsel appearing for both the parties but such prayer for adjustment was never made before the Magistrate. Therefore, this petition is not sustainable. He further submits that the awarded amount of maintenance has not been paid by the petitioner and, therefore, he may be directed to pay the entire arrear amount of maintenance to the opposite party/wife. It appears that the order for alimony pendente lite in Mat Suit No.1574 of 2023 was passed on 13.08.2024 by which the Additional District Judge has ordered to pay Rs.8,000/- per month 3 to the wife/opposite party herein. Whereas order for interim maintenance in the proceeding initiated under Section 125 Cr.P.C., petitioner was asked to pay Rs.3,000/- per month vide order dated 16.09.2025. It also appears that said prayer for interim maintenance was made on 2nd August, 2023 and written objection against said interim Application was filed on 4th March, 2024. Therefore it is clear that when the prayer for interim maintenance was made by opposite party/wife and even when the objection against such interim prayer was filed by petitioner/husband as 4th March, 2024, the order dated 13.08.2024 granting alimony pendente lite did not come into being. However when the order granting interim maintenance was passed on 16.09.2025, the said order passed by Additional District Judge on 13.08.2024 granting alimony pendente lite was very much in force. It is not understandable why either of the parties did not amend their respective pleading in the proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C. to incorporate the fact of granting alimony pendente lite by Additional District Judge on 13.08.2024. As a consequence it is palpably clear from the order granting interim maintenance on 16.09.2025 that there is no reflection of consideration about already granted alimony pendente lite of Rs.8,000/- per month by the Additional District Judge. In Rajnesh Vs, Neha, reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324, it was held by Apex Court that if maintenance is awarded to the wife in a previously instituted proceeding, she is under a legal obligation to disclose the same in a subsequent proceeding for maintenance, 4 which may be filed under another enactment. The object being that while granting relief in the subsequent proceeding under the different statute, Magistrate shall take into account and consider if any similar relief has been obtained by the aggrieved person, even if, each proceeding is an independent proceeding. The Court further held that Magistrate cannot ignore the maintenance awarded in any other legal proceeding, while determining whether over and above the maintenance already awarded, any further amount was required to be granted, for which reasons to be recorded in writing. In Para 128.2 of the said judgment Court clearly held that it is mandatory for the applicant to disclose the previous proceeding and the order passed therein, in the subsequent proceeding. Coming back to the instant case, it appears that order of granting maintenance pendente lite was passed on 13.08.2024 and order granting interim maintenance in the proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was passed on 16.09.2025. Therefore opposite party/wife got more than one year time to make amendment in her application seeking maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. to incorporate the order granting alimony pendent lite in Mat Suit No.1574 of 2023, which she did not do. Therefore the wife/opposite party has violated the mandatory law laid down by Apex Court in Rajnesh Vs. Neha (supra) and therefore she cannot claim equity by saying that the proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C. being a separate proceeding, the amount awarded by way of interim maintenance is not subject to adjustment with the alimony 5 pendente lite amount, as awarded in the proceeding under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act. Therefore having considered the submissions made by learned Counsel for the parties and also relying upon the ratio laid down in Rajnesh Vs. Neha & Anr. (supra), the instant application being CRR 1139 of 2026 is hereby disposed of with the observation that the amount awarded by the Magistrate towards interim maintenance on 16.09.2025 in M. Case No.186 of 2023 to the tune of Rs.3,000/- shall be subject to adjustment with the amount awarded by the Additional District Judge in Mat Suit No.1574 of 2023 dated 13.08.2024 by way of maintenance pendente lite, so long the suit shall remain pending, and till the same is not altered by the concerned Courts. The petitioner for the time being shall go on paying the higher amount, i.e. Rs.8,000/- per month towards maintenance to the opposite party herein within 10th day of each succeeding month and if thereby any arrear maintenance amount, the opposite party will be at liberty to initiate execution proceeding for realization of the same, subject to other provisions of law. CRR 1139 of 2026 along with connected applications, if any, stand disposed of. Parties to act on a server copy of this order duly collected from the official website of the Hon’ble High Court, Calcutta. ( Dr. Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J. )