You are on page 1of 2


a High Court (Appellete Side)

Ble Justice Ashim Kumar Roy Crr No. ... vs Lucy Tirki on 15
January, 2014
Author: Ashim Kumar Roy
Form No. J(1)
In the High Court at Calcutta
Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction
Appellate Side
The Hon'ble Justice Ashim Kumar Roy
CRR No. 4119 of 2013
Christopher Hembram
Lucy Tirki & Anr.
For the petitioner : Mr. Pulakesh Bajpayee
Heard on : 19-12-2013
Judgment on : 15.1.2014
Ashim Kumar Roy, J.:
Petitioner in this criminal revision challenged an order passed in connection with
a proceedingunder Section 125 Cr. P.C. directing him to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/per month to his minor son for his monthly maintenance. The record evinced that
there was no dispute over the paternity of the child and from the Annexure 'P-2' to
, the salary slip of the petitioner for the month of June, 2011 it appears at that time his
gross salary was Rs. 31,000/-. It is not disputedfrom the side of the petitioner that by now
his salary has increased. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
petitioner is going to retire by end of coming four years and after hisretirement it may not
be possible for him to spend that much of amount for the maintenance of his son. He
further added that the wife is a working lady and is a primary teacher and she is also liable
to maintain their son. This is a case where paternity of the child has not been challenged. In
these hard days taking into account the gross salary of the petitioner together with the fact
the opposite party/wife is also a earning lady I do not think the quantum of maintenance is

too high. The submission of the learned advocate of the petitioner after four years when he
shall retire from his service, the petitioner may not be in a position to spend such
huge amount behind his son is no way at all relevant at the present moment. If at
that time he is really unable to spend this amount of money for the maintenance of
his son then in that case he has every liberty to approach the court under section
127 CrPC. However, having regard to the facts after four years, when the petitioner
shall retire from his service, he may not be in a position to pay Rs. 10,000/- per
month to his son for his maintenance that cannot be a ground to reduce the
maintenance at this stage. Last but not the least I am of the opinion the quantum
of maintenance will not cause any hardship to the petitioner. This criminal
revision has no merit and accordingly stands dismissed. Criminal Section is
directed to deliver urgent Photostat certified copy of this order to the parties, if
applied for, as early as possible. The office is directed to communicate this order
both to the court below as well as to the opposite party at once. (Ashim Kumar
Roy, J.)