Calcutta High Court
MAT/748/2026 of KALYAN KRISHNA NANDI (IN PERSON) Vs THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. on 17 September 2026
Ct. No.1 Sl. No.10 PG/KS IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE M.A.T. 748 of 2026 with I.A. No. CAN 1 of 2026 KALYAN KRISHNA NANDI Versus THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS Appearance: Mr. Kalyan Krishna Nandi …………
ORDER SHEET
WBCHCA0189032026
Ct. No.1
Sl. No.10
PG/KS
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE
M.A.T. 748 of 2026
with
I.A. No. CAN 1 of 2026
KALYAN KRISHNA NANDI
Versus
THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS
Appearance:
Mr. Kalyan Krishna Nandi ………… Appellant (In Person)
Mr. D. N. Ray, Ld. G.P.
Mr. Ajit Kr. Mishra, Ld. AGP
Mr. Madhu Jana
Mr. Gopal Krishna Sarkar
Mr. Aman Mishra…………………. Advocate For the State Ms. Anamika Pandey Ms. Amrita Pandey …. Advocate For the Election Commission of India
CORAM: THE HON’BLE VITHALRAO GHUGE,
CHIEF JUSTICE
&
THE HON’BLE JUSTICE ARIJIT BANERJEE
Date: 17.09.2026
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
Order
(Per Court).
:
1. The Appellant has appeared in person before us. He has addressed us for almost 25 to 30 minutes. We have cautioned him for taking names of Hon’ble Judges and making comments with reference to Judges of the Court in inappropriate language. He has assured that henceforth if he address the Court in person, he will not utter the name of any Judge and will not make any comment against any Judge or about the judiciary.
2. The grievance of the Appellant is that he has not been given proper hearing at various stages. He further concedes that he is in arrears for an amount of Rs. 13 lakhs to be paid to the Respondent/wife as maintenance.
3. By an order dated 17.03.2026, the learned Single Judge has directed that an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- shall be debited from the Appellant’s salary account. The Appellant prays that the said order be stayed and his further prayer in the Appeal is that the said order be quashed and set aside.
4. We have perused the order dated 17.03.2026. The order deals with the fact situation. It also takes into account the allegation of the Appellant that he is not the father of the child and therefore, he is not liable to maintain the child. As regards the Respondent/wife, the Appellant submits that there is another lady, who masquerades as his wife. He further submits that he had moved an application for seeking DNA test before the Trial Court. The same got rejected for non- prosecution due to his purported absence.
5. He further submits that he never had the desire to remain absent from any Court proceeding. The application for seeking DNA test was filed before the learned Additional District Judge. The same got rejected because of alleged absence of the Appellant. Four Lawyers of his wife frequently beat him outside the Court and they had not allowed him to enter the Court. The Appellant has lodged an FIR against the Lawyers.
6. Learned counsel for the wife submits that an FIR was not lodged. A competent authority investigated into the complaint of the Appellant and found that the complaint is false.
7. The issue before this Court is as regards sustainability of the order passed by the learned Single Judge on 17.03.2026. Having gone through the said order threadbare, we find that the learned Single Judge has passed an appropriate order, which can neither be said to be perverse nor erroneous. Equities have been balanced by the order of the learned Single Judge. The Appellant is in arrears in payment of maintenance amount. The order granting Rs. 10,000/- per month to the wife and Rs. 5,000/- to the son, in the backdrop of the Appellant’s monthly gross salary of Rs. 66,000/-, is fair and proper. In fact, due to passage of time, the wife/son can claim enhancement, because the said amount was granted in 2024 by the Court with effect from the date of Application, which was filed in 2017.
8. In view of the above, we do not find any error in the order of the learned Single Judge.
9. This Appeal is devoid of merit and the same is dismissed with connected Civil Application No. 1 of 2026.
(ARIJIT BANERJEE, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE) CHIEF JUSTICE