Sl. January C.R.R. 162 of 2020
11. 16, 2020
In the matter of: An application under Section 483 of the Code of
In the matter of : Ali Rizvi
Mr. Supriyo Das,
…for the petitioner.
This is an application under Section 483 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure praying for expeditious disposal of the proceeding being Miscellaneous
Case No. 109853 of 2016 pending before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate,
Fifteenth Court at Kolkata.
It appears that on March 29, 2019, the case was adjourned as the
presiding officer had been transferred. On April 24, 2019, the presiding officer heard
both sides at length and May 14, 2019 was fixed for appearance, payment and
evidence. On May 14, 2019, there was a Bar resolution and on June 17, 2019, the
presiding officer was on leave. On the next date, that is, on July 25, 2019, the learned
advocate for the opposite party verbally submitted before the court that the opposite
party was not ready to go for evidence and, as such, September 16, 2019 was fixed
for evidence on which date there was a Bar resolution. On the next date fixed, that is,
on November 7, 2019, on filing a petition the opposite party remained absent. These
are the grounds taken by the petitioner/husband for an order of expeditious disposal
of the proceeding filed under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic
Violence Act, 2005.
It is true that as per the provision of sub-section (5) of Section 12
of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, such application is
required to be taken up expeditiously and summarily for disposal, preferably within
six months. But, because of the provisions of Section 23 of the said Act, invariably
corollary prayer is made for interim relief on behalf of the aggrieved party and, as
such, the matter consumes time for its decision. It would appear from the order dated
April 6, 2017 that an application under Section 23(2) of the Protection of Women
from Domestic Violence Act was allowed on contest in part directing the
petitioner/husband to pay Rs. 20,000/- per month as monetary relief to the opposite
party/wife from the date of passing of the said order within tenth of each succeeding
month. The petitioner/husband was also restrained by an order of injunction to
commit or abet any act of domestic violence or cruelty – mentally or physically – in
any manner whatsoever till disposal of the proceeding under Section 12 of the said
It is made to understand by the learned advocate for the
petitioner/husband that a first information report for the alleged offence under Section
498A of the Indian Penal Code is also pending against the petitioner, but does not
enlighten the court as to what stage the criminal proceeding is.
Be that as it may, I find that January 10, 2020 was fixed for
evidence. It was deferred as both the parties were absent. Several dates were fixed for
payment of the interim maintenance by the present petitioner, but the
petitioner/husband had paid only Rs. 12,000/- on the date fixed on June 13, 2018.
Therefore, June 20, 2018 was fixed for payment of Rs. 28,000/- by the
petitioner/husband positively, in default it was directed that necessary order was to be
passed. On the next date, that is, on June 20, 2018 a petition on behalf of the present
petitioner has been filed as he was unable to present the court due to sudden illness.
As such, June 28, 2018 was fixed for payment of a sum of Rs. 40,000/- by the
petitioner/husband. Again, on that date the petitioner/husband failed to pay the
interim maintenance of Rs. 40,000/- in arrear as ordered by the learned Magistrate
and took time. Another date, that is, July 4, 2018 was fixed and thereafter dates after
dates were fixed for payment of the interim maintenance but to no effect. The learned
Magistrate without bothering about his own order passed earlier in the matter of
payment of interim monetary relief goes on fixing the date for appearance and
evidence of the opposite party/wife. But, no order was so passed for clearing the
interim maintenance due payable to the opposite party/wife. On the contrary, the
learned Magistrate has made observation on his wishful thinking that the opposite
party/wife was not interested and eager to conduct the evidence rather was interested
only for interim relief. Such an observation made by the learned Magistrate by order
dated November 7, 2019 is a hopeless observation and a wishful thinking on his part
without making any effort or attempt to get the order passed by the court with regard
to interim maintenance complied with. The fact is that the petitioner/husband has not
complied with the order passed under Section 23 of the Protection of Women from
Domestic Violence Act, yet he is praying for expeditious disposal of the application
under Section 12 of the said Act.
I do not find any justification to pass any order for expeditious disposal of the
proceeding under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act straightway .
However, the learned Magistrate shall make all endeavour for realisation of the interim maintenance
due in compliance of his order and for payment of the same to the opposite party/wife, otherwise to
take stern action against the petitioner/husband in the event non-compliance of court’s order and
thereafter to proceed with the application under Section 12 of the Act as expeditiously as possible.
With the aforesaid observations, this revisional application is disposed of
without directing the petitioner to serve notice on the opposite party/wife as the order passed by this
court, as aforesaid, will not be prejudicial to the opposite party/wife in any manner.
Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned Metropolitan
Magistrate, Fifteenth Court at Calcutta, through the learned Registrar Administration (LOM) of this
( Shivakant Prasad, J. )