IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE Sl. 25-26 29.09.2026 Court No.34 Sc CRR 2163 OF 2024 With CRR 2945 of 2023 -------- In Re : CRR 2945 of 2023 Re : An application under Section 482 with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In the matter of: Monalisa Dasgupta (Dhar) … Petitioner Mr. Shibaji Kr. Das, Adv. Ms. Deblina De, Adv. …For the Petitioner 1. Mr. Shibaji Kr. Das, learned Advocate is appearing on behalf of the petitioner. 2. None appears on behalf of the opposite party. 3. The matter pertains to an order passed by the learned ACJM, 2nd Court, Kalyani, Nadia whereby a direction was given to the husband to pay an amount of Rs.8000/- towards maintenance for the wife/petitioner and Rs.10,000/- for the minor daughter respectively. 4. It is submitted by the learned Advocate representing the petitioner that initially a direction for interim maintenance in respect of the proceeding filed under Section 125 Cr.PC was heard by the said learned ACJM, Kalyani. A direction was given to pay an amount of Rs.30,000/- per month for the wife and Rs.20,000/- per month for the minor daughter. The said 2 order was assailed before this Court by the husband by filing a a revisional application and the learned co-ordinate Bench passed an order on 26th April, 2023 whereby the said order of the learned Magistrate was set aside. 5. A further direction was given to the learned Magistrate to hear the matter afresh following the guidelines in terms of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in Rajnesh –vs.- Nisha. 6. The matter was relegated to the learned Magistrate and the Court of ACJM on May 30, 2023 passed an order whereby the said amount was drastically reduced to an amount of Rs.8000/- and Rs.10,000/- towards maintenance. 7. It is submitted by the learned Advocate representing the petitioner that the said order is not sustainable in the eye of law as the learned Court invoked Section 127 Cr.P.C. and altered its earlier order dated July 11, 2022 and thereby passed such order. The learned Court disposed of the matter on contest. 8. This order was set aside by the coordinate Bench after giving necessary reasons for the same. 9. Since none appeared on behalf of the opposite party to controvert the allegation advanced by the present petitioner/wife, this Court finds that the order passed by the learned ACJM, Kalyani is wholly de hors the provision of Section 125 Cr.P.C. The order is also vitiated by the learned ACJM’s failure to comply with binding directions issued by the High Court and to observe the judicial hierarchy. The High 3 Court had directed the learned ACJM to conduct a fresh trial and that direction was required to be followed scrupulously. The learned Court below was further bound to proceed in accordance with the specific direction issued by the learned co- ordinate Bench following the mandate of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Therefore, at no point of time it can be said that the said order is sustainable in the eye of law and is liable to be set aside. Its failure to do so constitute a clear procedural violation and renders the order unsustainable. 10. The question of invoking Section 127 of the Cr.P.C. and to alter its earlier order does not arise at all since by virtue of the direction of the High Court the learned ACJM, Kalyani was to carry out the order and to allow the parties to file their respective affidavits of assets and liabilities and to consider the same in accordance with law to arrive at a logical conclusion. Such entire exercise is found missing from the four corners of the order. 11. Now the question falls for consideration is that since filing of this proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C. by the present petitioner against the husband praying for maintenance of an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- per month for herself and Rs.50,000/- per month for her minor daughter she has not yet been provided with any maintenance and pursuant to the order of the learned co-ordinate Bench the interim maintenance granted to the extent of Rs.50,000/- was set aside without specifying any amount of maintenance. 4 12. The minor girl is now a school going child and a hefty amount is being paid towards her school fees, travel expenses and extra curricular activities. Till date it is not controverted that the present petitioner is not having any income of her own for the purpose of her sustenance. The provision under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was incorporated in order to prevent the vagrancy and the destitution to be faced by the wife or minor children or the depending parents immediately after being deserted or after such situation arises when she/they is/are not in a position to maintain themselves or herself. Since it is admitted that the petitioner being a homemaker is not having any independent source of income and the marriage is not disputed, it is the responsibility of the husband to maintain the wife and child. There may be dispute regarding the quantum of maintenance which can be ascertained at the time of trial. Learned Magistrate has to consider prima facie whether the applicant is having any income of her own and the amount of income earned by the husband. 13. In view of the affidavits of assets and liabilities placed before the ACJM, Kalyani it is evident that the amount as mentioned to be the income of the husband by the present petitioner has been refuted and contended specifically that he has having an income of Rs.30,000/- per month. The said fact has to be proved in course of trial. 14. Therefore, considering the entire facts and circumstance this Court is of the view that the purpose would be sub-served if at this stage the opposite party/husband is directed to pay an 5 amount of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty-Five Thousand only) towards the maintenance of wife and Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) for the maintenance of minor daughter. 15. It can be seen from the record that, he has already paid Rs.1,55,500/- till September, 2022 considering the amount of maintenance of Rs.18,000/- per month. 16. The enhanced amount is directed to be paid from the date of passing of the order of this Court. 17. The opposite party is directed to pay the arrear amount lying not paid since October, 2022 in six equal monthly installments along with the current amount to be paid directly to the present petitioner by crediting her bank account which has been mentioned at her affidavit of assets and liabilities. The said amount is to be paid within 10th of each month. 18. This order will be effective from this day. 19. In view of the above, the instant revisional application, CRR 2945 of 2023 stands allowed. 20. The revisional application, CRR 2945 of 2023 stands disposed of. Re : CRR 2163 OF 2024 ------- 21. The revisional application, CRR 2163 of 2024 is dismissed for default. (Chaitali Chatterjee (Das), J.)