1. These two applications are taken up for hearing analogously since the two applications have arisen out of the same matrimonial suit being Matrimonial Suit No.11 of 2007 pending before the learned Additional District Judge, Twelfth Court, Alipore.
2. The wife is the petitioner of the application being C.O. No.2886 of 2010 and she has come up against the order no.53 dated June 14, 2010 and the order no.52 dated July 7, 2010 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Twelfth Court, Alipore in the said matrimonial suit. The other application being C.O. No.3166 of 2010 has arisen out of the order dated 53 dated September 14, 2010 passed by the same learned Additional District Judge in the said matrimonial suit.
3. or convenience, I am taking up the C.O. No.2886 of 2010 first.
4. The wife/petitioner herein is the respondent of the Matrimonial Suit No.11 of 2007 under the Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 filed by the husband/opposite party herein. The said matrimonial suit was filed by the husband before the learned District Judge, Hooghly. It was transferred to the Court of the learned District Judge at Alipore at the instance of the wife on an application under Section 24 of the C.P.C. before this Honble Court and by an order dated December 13, 2004 in the C.O. No.2682 of 2003, the learned District Judge or the learned transferee Court from him, was directed to dispose of the suit within a period of three weeks from the date of communication of that order. But, it is unfortunate to note that since then the matter is still pending.
5. The grievance of the petitioner is that he was granted alimony by an order dated May 20, 2006 to the extent of Rs.1,500/- per month for herself and Rs.1,000/- per month for her minor son. In the meantime, the income of the husband/opposite party herein who is a police officer, has been increased to a considerable extent and for that reason she prayed for enhancement of the alimony. By the impugned order, the learned Trial Judge has enhanced the amount by Rs.500/- for each of the two, that is, Rs.2,000/- per month for the wife/petitioner and Rs.1,500/- per month for the son with effect from the date of filing of the application for enhancement of the alimony. Being not satisfied with such amount, the wife has filed this revisional application for enhancement. Now, the question is whether the learned Trial Judge was justified in enhancing the said amount.
6. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on going through the materials on record, I find that though the order of alimony was initially passed on May 20, 2006, the prayer for enhancement was sought for in 2010 that too when the matrimonial proceeding is going to be disposed of soon. Evidence of the husband has been closed and the matrimonial proceeding is pending for recording the evidence on behalf of the wife/petitioner. But, it is the wife who is taking adjournments and she has prayed for enhancement of the alimony at the close stage of the said matrimonial proceeding. However, by the impugned order the learned Trial Judge has enhanced to the extent of Rs.500/- for each of the two. There is no dispute that the husband is a police personnel and his salary has been increased to a considerable amount in the meantime. But the exact figure of the salary of the husband is not before the learned Trial Court. The learned Trial Judge enhanced the alimony in a general manner to the extent already stated. What fact remains unnoticed is that the wife filed an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. and that application was allowed granting maintenance at the Rs.4,000/- per month total in favour of the wife and her son. It is contended before me by the learned Advocate for the opposite party that the husband has been paying such amount. But, this fact has not been taken into consideration. Since, the case is at the close stage and the amount of maintenance is being paid by the husband in a separate maintenance proceeding and this fact has not been considered at the time of enhancement of the alimony, I am of the view that this Court exercising inherent jurisdiction shall not interfere with the impugned order. After all, the husband is paying alimony as well as maintenance under two counts to the wife from his same source of income, that is, salary.
7. This being the position, I am of the view that so far as enhancement of further alimony is concerned, this revisional Court should not pass any further order. Above all, I find that previously the petitioner filed a civil revision bearing C.O. No.2682 of 2003. That civil revisional application was disposed of by an order dated December 13, 2004 directing the transferee Court to dispose of the suit within a period of three weeks from the date of communication of that order as the suit was at the stage of close of the evidence. Since then, six years have already passed but, the suit is kept pending at the instance of the wife and the wife is getting maintenance and alimony from the husband. So, the conduct of the wife appears that she is very much interested in the matter of getting maintenance and alimony rather than disposal of the suit. The order of this Honble Court has, thus, been frustrated.
8. Under the circumstances, I am of the view that a specific direction should be given upon the learned Trial Judge for disposal of the suit within two months from the date of communication of this order. The learned Trial Judge is also directed that he shall not grant any adjournment to either of the parties except where the situation is beyond the control of the parties. It is also recorded that if the wife takes a plea that she is not getting maintenance and alimony, she is at liberty to take effective steps for execution of the respective orders by filing appropriate proceedings and not in the suit so as to frustrate the orders passed by this Honble Court six years back. This application is disposed of in the manner indicated above. This order is firm and mandatory and the learned Trial Judge is directed to act strictly.
9. Considering the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs.
C.O. No.3166 of 2010
10. The husband of the said Matrimonial suit No.11 of 2007 filed this revisional application praying for early disposal of the suit in view of the order of this Honble Court as discussed above and also praying for setting aside the order no.53 dated September 14, 2010 by which the application under Section 151 of the C.P.C. filed by the husband for expeditious disposal of the suit was kept without passing any order thereon. In view of the findings and directions in the C.O. No.2886 of 2010, I am of the view that further direction is not necessary. The observations made in the above civil revision shall govern the present application also. The learned Trial Judge is directed to dispose of the suit in the manner as indicated in C.O. No.2886 of 2010.
11. This revisional application is disposed of accordingly. Considering the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs.
12. Urgent xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the learned Advocates for the parties on their usual undertaking.