. No. 33
CRR 887 of 2018
In re: Indrajit Halder.
Mr. Apurba Kr. Datta.
……for the petitioner.
Mr. Ranabir Roychowdhury.
……for the State.
Challenge in this revisional application by the petitioner husband is
against the order dated 28th February, 2017 passed by the learned Additional
District Sessions Judge, Tehatta in Criminal Appeal No.3 of 2016 whereby
direction was given to the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.8,000/- to the opposite
party no.1 wife as interim monetary relief till the disposal of the case inter alia on
the grounds that the order dated 13th October, 2015 passed by the learned
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tehatta in Case No.M.R. 187(IV) of 2015
that the petitioner was compelled to file a divorce suit under Section 13(1) of the
Hindu Marriage Act before the learned Additional District Judge, Ranaghat being
MAT Suit No.322 of 2013 wherein the opposite party no.1 wife entered
appearance and filed application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act
which is still pending for consideration.
After lapse of 18 months from filing the application under Section 24 of the
Hindu Marriage Act, she lodged a complaint before Taherpur Police Station and
on the basis of Taherpur Police Station Case No.178 of 2015 dated 4th October,
2015 under Section 498A/34 of the Indian Penal Code was started against the
petitioner, his parents and his sister and the opposite party no.1 filed an
application under Sections 12 and 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic
Violence Act, 2005 registered as M.R. 187(IV) of 2015. The Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Tehatta passed an exparte ad-interim order on the basis of
affidavit filed by the opposite party no.1 without giving an opportunity to the
present petitioner to appear and to contest the case.
By the said order, the learned Magistrate considered the prayer under
Section 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 directed
the present petitioner husband to pay Rs.8,000/- and Rs.5,000/- per month as
interim monetary relief for the opposite party no.1 and her minor son and the
present petitioner was also directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- per month for the
cost of alternative accommodation totalling to Rs.15,000/- per month till the
disposal of the case.
This order of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tehatta, Nadia was assailed
before the learned Additional District Sessions Judge, Tehatta in Criminal
Appeal No.3 of 2016 and Additional District Sessions Judge, Tehatta allowed
the appeal in part but without costs directing the present petitioner to pay
Rs.8,000/- per month to the opposite party no.1 wife as interim monetary relief
till the disposal of the case.
My attention is invited by Mr. Datta to the application filed under Section
340(1) and points out that the false averments to the effect that no payment of a
sum of Rs.5 lakh, 20 bharies of ornaments and other articles were provided to
the present petitioner by the father of the opposite party no.1 at the time of
marriage on 9th December, 2012. This averment, if made, on behalf of the
opposite party no.1 in her application in DV Act, this obviously is subject to the
evidence which can be adduced to refute the allegation in the trial under Section
12 and 24 of the D.V. Act but that does not mean that the petitioner husband
has a ground to assail the order of interim relief given to the opposite party no.1
Therefore, the miscellaneous case started under Section 340(1) read with
Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the subject matter of decision in a
separate proceeding for that the order impugned cannot be assailed. The interim
order of relief which has been given to the opposite party no.1 wife cannot be
assailed on such a ground before this court.
Hence, the revisional application being CRR 887 of 2018 is dismissed with
direction to the petitioner husband to go on payment the interim relief of
maintenance as granted by the learned Sessions Judge, Tehatta in Criminal
Appeal No.3 of 2016 in its letter and spirit till the final decision in the PWDV Act
under Section 12 and 24 of the D.V. Act.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order if applied for shall be given to
the parties as expeditiously as possible.
(Shivakant Prasad, J.)