2,000/ per month to the minor son.
Background facts in a nutshell are as follows The marriage of the appellant and the respondent was solemnized on 10.08.1995 as per Hindu rites and customs at the appellants residence at Kalna.
In the said divorce petition, the respondent wife filed an application for permanent alimony under Section 25 of the Act.
The appellant and his parents were granted anticipatory bail by the Sessions Judge, Burdwan on 20.05.1998 in the FIR filed by the respondent wife.
Case No.2 of 2010 in Matrimonial Suit No.533 of 2003 under Section 25 2 of the Act praying for enhancement of maintenance amounting to Rs.10,000/ per month for herself and Rs.
8,000/ per month in F.A. No.
Vide order dated 10.10.2012, the said application was allowed and maintenance at the rate of Rs.6000/ each was ordered for the respondent and her minor son.
6,000/ for her minor son.
The appellant husband filed a divorce petition being Matrimonial Suit No.71 of 2007 which was renumbered as Suit No.193 of 2010 under Section 13 1 ia of the Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of marriage.
In the year 2003, respondent wife filed a Matrimonial Suit No.533 of 2003 before the District Judge Hooghly against the appellant husband under Section 10 of the Act for judicial separation.
The appellant husband requested the respondent to return to the matrimonial home at Kalna alongwith the child.
The respondent wife also filed a maintenance case being Misc.
Aggrieved by this order, the respondent wife preferred a Special Leave Petition C No.12968 of 2015 which was disposed of as withdrawn with liberty to approach the High Court by way of review.
3087 of 2006 before the High Court at Calcutta which came to be dismissed on 21.03.2011.
On receipt of summons in the above matrimonial suit on 9.02.1998, the respondent wife lodged an FIR bearing P.S. Case No.25 dated 13.02.1998 under Sections 498A and 406 IPC against the appellant and his parents at P.S. Chandannagore.
193 of 2008.
Parties are entangled in several rounds of litigation.
Upon hearing both the parties, by order dated 15.09.2016, the learned Single Judge of the High Court modified the order under review and enhanced the amount of maintenance from Rs.16,000/ to Rs.23,000/ which is the subject matter of challenge in this appeal.
Being aggrieved by the order hereinabove, the respondent wife filed a revision petition being CRR No.
According to the appellant, though he filed written objections denying allegations made against him, he companyld number attend the hearing and it is alleged that he was manhandled in the companyrt premises by some men of the respondent wife.
On 10.08.2000, the Additional District Judge, Burdwan passed decree of restitution of companyjugal rights in favour of the appellant husband.
Post divorce, the appellant herein re married and has a male child born out of the second wedlock.
It is alleged that instead of acceding to the request of the appellant husband and returning back to the matrimonial home, the respondent wife insisted that the appellant husband shifts to her fathers place at Chandannagore.
On 10.10.2010, the respondent filed an amendment application before the Court being Misc.
In the High Court, by an order dated 24.05.2001 an interim arrangement was made directing the appellant herein to go to the parental home of the respondent wife at Chandannagore and take back the wife and the child to his residence at Kalna and make necessary arrangement for living with his wife and child separately from the parents of the husband in the first floor of the matrimonial home.
Appellant filed an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for restitution of companyjugal rights against the respondent wife in Matrimonial Suit No.370 of 1997 before the District Judge, Burdwan on 23.12.1997.
Case No.24/98 under Section 125 Cr.
By an order dated 02.02.2015, the High Court disposed of the above revision petition by directing the appellant husband to pay a sum of Rs.16,000/ towards the maintenance of the respondent wife as well as her minor son.
After the birth of child, it is alleged that the respondent companytinued in her parents house.
However, the respondent did number reconcile and preferred an appeal against the said decree of restitution of companyjugal rights before the High Court being F.A. No.198 of 2001.
By an order dated 19.05.2006, passed by the Additional District Judge, 1st Court, Hooghly in Matrimonial Suit No.533 of 2003, enhanced the amount of maintenance to Rs.
A male child was born on 04.10.1996 at Chandannagore who is number a major pursuing his companylege education.
Pursuant to the above order, respondent wife filed a review application being RVW No.85 of 2016 arising out of CO NO.4228 of 2012.
Aggrieved by this order, respondent wife preferred a revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India before the High Court being C.O. No.4228 of 2012.
The interim arrangement did number work and the appeal filed by the respondent wife was allowed on 13.08.2003.
In the meanwhile, the appellant husband and his parents were acquitted of all the charges by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, 2nd Fast Track Court, Serempore on 20.07.2006 in the case filed alleging dowry harassment.
Challenge in this appeal is to the order dated 15.09.2016 passed by the High Court at Calcutta in RVW No.85 of 2016 in C.O. No.4228 of 2012, reviewing an order dated 02.02.2015 passed earlier in an application filed under Section 25 2 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, thereby enhancing the amount of maintenance from Rs.16,000/ per month to Rs.23,000/ per month.
BANUMATHI, J. Leave granted.
During its pendency, the Matrimonial Suit No.193 of 2010 was decreed and the marriage between the parties came to be dissolved by the order of the Additional District Judge, 1st Fast Track Court, Serampore on 30.11.2012.
Ex parte decree for judicial separation was ordered on 19.05.2006, as a companysequence of which decree for permanent alimony was also ordered under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act to the respondent wife amounting to Rs.2,500/ per month and Rs.
Subsequently, the interim arrangement was recalled.
P.C. against the appellant husband claiming maintenance for herself and the minor son.
