CRR/2317/2024 of PURNIMA MANDAL AND ANOTHER Vs SAMIR MONDAL AND ANOTHER on 10 September 2026

10.9.2026 Ct. No. 42 SL No. 33 AB

C.R.R. 2317 of 2024

In the matter of: Smt. Purnima Mandal & Anr.

Mr. Mukteswar Maity

Ms. Manika Sarkar

……. For the petitioners

Mr. Malay Bhattacharya

Mr. Kinkar Kumar Bandyopadhyay

……. For respondent no. 1

The petitioners, Smt. Purnima Mandal and her minor son Sri Somsuvra Mandal, have approached this Court by filing the instant criminal revisional application challenging the judgment and order dated 20th March, 2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 1st Court, Contai, Purba Midnapore, in Criminal Revision No. 16 of 2021. By the said impugned judgment, the learned revisional Court allowed the husband's revision and modified the interim maintenance order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 3rd Court, Contai, in Misc. Case No. 213 of 2017 arising out of an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Trial Magistrate had originally granted a total interim maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- per month—comprising Rs. 2,500/- for the wife and Rs. 2,500/- for the minor child—which the learned Sessions Judge subsequently reduced to a total of Rs. 3,000/- per month, apportioning Rs. 2,000/- for the wife and Rs. 1,000/- for the minor son.

The principal grievance urged on behalf of the petitioners is that the impugned appellate-revisional order suffers from a lack of adequate reasoning and ignores the escalating cost of living, making a downward revision of interim maintenance arbitrary and unfair. It is forcefully contended that the husband- opposite party has defaulted on payments and failed to clear mounting arrears, and that the affidavit of assets and liabilities filed by him—which formed the bedrock of the reduction—was fraught with inconsistencies and remained improperly scrutinized. Furthermore, it is argued that the revisional Court failed to issue a consequential mandate directing the Trial Court to expedite the primary proceeding for permanent alimony. Per contra, learned counsel representing the opposite party-husband staunchly defends the impugned order, arguing that the reduction was a well-considered exercise of judicial discretion. It is submitted that the assessment was strictly anchored to the statutory mandate and procedural discipline laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha [(2021) 2 SCC 324], taking into concrete account the financial disclosures and the independent earning capacity of the wife, who reportedly operates as a Life Insurance Corporation (LIC) agent. Hence, it is argued that the reduction warrants no interference under the revisional jurisdiction. However, during the course of hearing, a pragmatic consensus has emerged between the learned counsels representing the rival factions. Both sides submit that instead of protracted litigation over interim arrangements, the lis would be best subserved if the core dispute is remitted back to the jurisdictional Trial Court for an expeditious, final adjudication of the substantive application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is a well-settled principle of matrimonial jurisprudence that interim maintenance is designed to sustain the destitute spouse and minor children during the pendency of litigation, preventing vagrancy and destitution, whereas final maintenance requires a holistic appraisal of evidence, lifestyle, and verified financial capacities. As enunciated by the Apex Court in Rajnesh v. Neha, the filing of an affidavit of assets and liabilities is mandatory, but its true utility lies in being tested through cross- examination and evaluated alongside oral and documentary evidence during trial, rather than being treated as gospel truth at an interim stage. In view of the consensus between the parties and upon a holistic appraisal of the materials on record, this Court finds that keeping the interim dispute alive serves little purpose when the principal proceeding for maintenance itself awaits finality. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 20th March, 2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 1st Court, Contai, in Criminal Revision No. 16 of 2021 is set aside, and the matter is remanded back to the learned Trial Court for a comprehensive trial and disposal of the main application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned Trial Court is requested to take up the matter on priority and make all earnest endeavors to conclude the proceeding and determine final maintenance/permanent alimony as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six months from the date of communication of this order, strictly in accordance with the guidelines formulated in Rajnesh v. Neha and upon affording both sides adequate opportunity to adduce evidence and test the respective affidavits of assets and liabilities. It is made clear that the petitioners shall remain at liberty to take appropriate steps in accordance with law before the executing forum for the realization of any undisputed or legally recoverable arrears of maintenance accumulated under the interim orders. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the criminal revisional application stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. All interim orders stand vacated. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities. (Uday Kumar, J.)