Prakash Baidya v. Biren Baidya And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

[ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] *** CRR/3/2023 Prakash Baidya Vs.

Biren Baidya and another Mr. Rakesh Pal Gobind ...

for the petitioner Mr. Sudarsan Biswas ...

for the respondents Ms.A.S.Zinu ...

for the State March 21, 2023 [SR] Item No.5 The application, being CRR/3/2023, has been filed challenging the order dated 5th November, 2021 passed by the Judge, Family Court, South Andaman, Port Blair. By this order, the Court directed the Opposite Party No.1 and 2 to pay Rs.3,000/- each per month to the petitioner (The petitioner was the father of the petitioner here) as interim maintenance with effect from February, 2020. The direction was given upon both the Opposite Party No.1 and Opposite Party No.2 including the direction for arrears of maintenance in four equal installments to the petitioner, being father of the petitioner herein along with current maintenance. In the meantime, the Opposite Party No.2 before the Family Court expired on 31st December, 2021. Now, only Prakash Baidya, the petitioner herein, remains for compliance with the order passed by the Family Court.

The petitioner here, namely Prakash Baidya, filed one affidavit of asset in the Court of Judge, Family Court at Port Blair in Misc.Case No.6 of 2019 stating that he has a small plantation with 23 numbers of coconut trees, some Neem trees, some Drum Stick trees and some Banana trees and some other vegetable plantation and he has declared himself as a private mazdoor, who has little bit income from the said encroachment landed property. He has also stated that he had semi pucca house in the encroached landed property, where he is residing along with his family members including school going children and he has total five family members. The allegation of the father of the petitioner here is that the petitioner no.1 has a resort, which he runs and generates income from the said resort, but, the petitioner herein fully suppressed the facts by stating, in the affidavit of assets, that he is a private mazdoor.

This Court directed the concerned police authority to make an enquiry into the matter and to file a report, which has been filed today wherefrom it appears that the petitioner herein stated blatant lie before this Court and also before the Family Court, by introducing him as a private mazdoor and by suppressing that he is running a resort there in the Saheed Dweep ( previsouly known as Nel Island). The police authority has filed a thorough report for which I express my satisfaction and pleasure in respect of the job of the police authority. From the said report, which includes the statement of the persons of the adjacent area

clearly states that the said resort is owned by the petitioner herein. Some photographs of the said resort namely "Akash Resort" (in the name of the son of the petitioner) have also been enclosed in the said report.

I am satisfied with the report contains substance to come to a conclusion that the petitioner has sufficient income to pay the total of Rs.6000/- per month, as was directed by the Family Court, though it was divided between two brothers in equal shares. Now the other brother has expired and I direct the petitioner, Prakash Baidya to comply with the order of the Family Court by paying Rs.6000/- per month, including arrears amount, as was directed by the said Family Court.

The arrear amount has to be given to the father of the petitioner in four equal installments but the current arrears have to be paid from 1st April, 2023 and then monthly maintenance is to be handed over to the father of the petitioner in cash by the petitioner against receipt to be given by his father.

As the petitioner has made a false statement in affidavit suppressing the fact about his properties, I impose the cost of Rs.5000/- upon the said petitioner Prakash Baidya, to be paid to the State Legal Services Authority, Andaman and Nicobar Islands, within a period of seven days from tomorrow (22.03.2023). If the cost is not paid, it will be realized by the State Legal Services Authority by taking steps, in accordance with law.

With the above observations and directions, this application, being CRR/3/2023, is disposed of. The personal presence of Mr. Ajay Rai, Deputy Superintendent of Police is dispensed with. However, he was not directed to be present but has completed his duty and he has appeared before this Court for which I must say that he is really a dutiful officer.

The family court will hear the matter and will pass a final order in accordance with law as the petitioner approached this Court against the interim order of the family Court.

( Abhijit Gangopadhyay, J. )