Sagar Ghorai v. Madhumita Ghorai @ Kabari
16.05.25 23 Ct. No. 06 Sws.M CO 1713 of 2025 Sagar Ghorai vs.
Madhumita Ghorai @ Kabari Mrs. Mita Bag ....for the Petitioner This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the husband and is directed against an order being No. 11 dated March, 20, 2025 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track 1st Court, Paschim Medinipur in Misc. Case No. 5 of 2024.
By the order impugned the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track 1st Court directed the petitioner herein to pay interim maintenance pendente lite to the tune of Rs.6,000/- to the wife and a further sum of Rs.3,000/- to the minor child, aggregating maintenance to the tune of Rs.9,000/- per month on and from the date of the order within ten of each succeeding month.
The learned Trial Judge took note of the statement of account of the petitioner/husband maintained with the State Bank of India and the learned Trial Judge noted that on 1st June, 2024 the balance in the said bank account was Rs. 10,50,545.30/- while on 1st May, 2024 he had Rs. 10,91,029.93/- as opening balance. The learned Trial Judge further noted that from October 1, 2024 his bank balance came down to Rs.2,80,816/- and
subsequently on October 31, 2024 the balance was only Rs. 42.32/-.
The learned Trial Judge further noted from the bank statement that the husband has several credits of various amounts ranging from Rs.400/- to Rs. 8,000/- on various dates and occasions and his bank accounts gets continuous credit figures but his continuous multiple source of earning apart from the projected figure of Rs.6,000/- remaining unexplained.
After going through the certificate annexed to the application, this Court is of the considered view that the certificate also supports the amounts credited to the bank account.
The learned advocate appearing for the petitioner in course of argument could not controvert the aforesaid factual finding recorded by the learned Trial Judge.
The learned Trial Judge recorded that the husband being an able bodied man having multiple inflow of cash from allied sources including that of the assistant of doctor who is bound to maintain his wife and the child. There is no infirmity in the impugned order.
For such reason this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order impugned.
Accordingly, CO 1713 of 2025 stands dismissed.
There shall be however no order as to costs.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be furnished to the parties expeditiously upon compliance of all legal formalities.
(Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.)