Shri. Md. Safique v. Smti. K. Sharina And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

[ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] *** CRR/27/2025 Shri. Md. Safique Vs.

Smti. K Sharina and others Mr. Adarsh Ilango ... for the petitioner Mr. Alokesh Sarkar ... for the respondent July 01, 2025 [SR] Item No. 9 The petitioner challenges an order of maintenance passed under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the learned Judge, Family Court, at Port Blair. By the said order, the learned Judge directed the petitioner to pay maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month to respondent no. 1 (his wife), and Rs.4,000/- per month each for their two minor children.

Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner argues that the learned Judge failed to consider the evidence on record, which clearly indicates that respondent no. 1, along with her children, resides in the matrimonial home, while the petitioner has been driven out and is currently residing in a rented accommodation. It is further submitted that the learned Judge erred in taking into account medical expenses allegedly borne by respondent no. 1, although the evidence suggests that she does not require any urgent medical treatment. It appears that the petitioner has four daughters. Two of them have attained the age of majority, while the remaining two are minors. It also appears that a salary certificate was

produced before the learned Judge, indicating that the petitioner earns a salary in excess of Rs.27,000/- per month. In this revisional application, by an order dated June 17, 2025, the petitioner was directed to file a supplementary affidavit annexing his latest salary certificate. In compliance, a supplementary affidavit has been filed by the petitioner before this Court, enclosing his bank account statement. From the said statement, it appears that the petitioner's last wage bill for the month of May 2025 was Rs.30,068/-.

I am of the view that the learned advocate for the petitioner has rightly contended that, having regard to the evidence on record, the medical expenses of respondent no. 1 ought not to have been factored into the maintenance amount awarded to her.

At the same time, I am also of the view that the amount of Rs.4,000/- per month awarded for each minor daughter is inadequate, considering the current cost of living. Accordingly, the order of the learned Family Court is modified. The petitioner is directed to pay Rs.7,000/- per month to respondent no. 1, and Rs.5,000/- per month each for the two minor daughters.

It has been submitted by the learned advocate for the respondents that the petitioner has not been complying with the maintenance order passed by the learned Family Court.

Needless to mention, respondent no. 1 shall be at liberty to execute the order of the learned Family Court, as modified by this Court, in accordance with law.

With the above observations and directions, CRR/27/2025 stands disposed of.

( Kausik Chanda, J. )