WHAT DID THE Court SAY?
- In Nripendra Chandra Mahanta v. Smt. Pramila Mahanta, the Calcutta HC directed the District Judge, Cooch Behar to decide the application for alimony filed u/s 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act by a wife in compliance with the directions laid down by the Apec Court in Rajnesh v. Neha.
- In Rajnesh v. Neha, the Supreme Court mandated that the Affidavit Disclosing of Assets and Liabilities has to be filed by both parties in all maintenance proceedings throughout the country.
WHAT IS THE CASE ABOUT?
- In this case, the respondent wife had initially filed for maintenance of Rs.40,000/- per month before the District Judge, Cooch Behar. However, the Court decided the maintenance amount to be at Rs. 7,000/- per month.
- An appeal was filed against this order by the husband on the ground that he is a retired school teacher and cannot afford to pay this amount.
CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES:
- The respondent wife contended that the family income of the appellant is Rs. 1,25,000/- per month and that is why the maintenance amount should be Rs. 40,000/- per month.
- The appellant contended that he is a retired school teacher and cannot be expected to pay such an outrageous amount of maintenance.
OBSERVATION OF THE COURT AND DECISION:
- The Ld. Court noted that the District Judge, Cooch Behar had passed the order for maintenance in absence of Affidavits disclosing assets and liabilities by the parties.
- The Court further observed that the District Judge failed to comply with the directions given by the Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha case.
- Accordingly, the Court directed the District Court to decide on the case afresh while complying with Rajnesh v. Neha case.