1

.3.2019
p.b.

. 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
2

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
3

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

wife.

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.)