IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction
The Hon’ble Justice Madhumati Mitra
C.R.R. 414 of 2019
CRAN 2051 of 2019
Advocate for the Petitioner : Ms. Subhasree Patel
Ms. Pallabi Biswas
Advocate for the Opposite Party No.2 : Mr. Abdur Rakib
Mr. Jnip Bose
Judgment on : 02.08.2019
Madhumati Mitra, J. :
This is an application under Section 401 read with Section 482 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure filed by the petitioner challenging the impugned judgment
and order dated 10.12.2018, passed by the Learned Additional District and
Sessions Judge, Second Court, Sealdah, South 24 Parganas. By the impugned
order, the Learned Judge allowed the Criminal Appeal no.17 of 2017 preferred by
the opposite party and set aside the order dated 02.02.2017, passed by the
Learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Court, Sealdah, South 24 Parganas, directing the
present petitioner to pay Rs.4,500/- per month towards maintenance of the
opposite party since the date of the application under Section 23 of the Protection
of Women from SectionDomestic Violence Act.
which are necessary for disposal of this revisional application may be
summarized as under:-
Admittedly the opposite party is the legally married wife of the present
petitioner. Their marriage was solemnized on 12.08.2013 in accordance with
Hindu Rites and Ceremonies. The marriage of the petitioner and opposite party
was the outcome of their love affairs. After marriage, the opposite party/wife
started to reside at her matrimonial home with the petitioner and her in-laws.
The marriage of the petitioner and opposite party was not happy one. On
30.07.2014, the opposite party filed an application under Section 23 of Protection
of Women from SectionDomestic Violence Act against the petitioner making allegations
that she was subjected to cruelty and torture by her husband and in-laws for
demand of dowry. Opposite party also initiated criminal proceeding against her
husband and in-laws for commission of alleged offences under Section
498A/Section406/Section411 of the Indian Penal Code.
From the order passed by the Learned Magistrate, it transpires that the
prayer for maintenance of the wife was refused on the ground that the
petitioner/present opposite party is a working lady and she is not unemployed.
Learned Magistrate also observed that present opposite party did not state
anything regarding her status, position and the salary. Accordingly, the Learned
Magistrate refused the prayer for interim maintenance on the ground that she is
not at all in urgent need of maintenance.
Present opposite party challenged the order of rejection of her maintenance
by preferring an appeal under Section 29 of the Protection of Women from
SectionDomestic Violence Act. That appeal was registered as Criminal appeal no.17 of
2017. On 10th December, 2018 the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Second
Court, Sealdah, has allowed the said criminal appeal on contest and set aside the
order passed by the Learned Magistrate. The present petitioner has been the
directed to pay Rs.4,500/- per month towards maintenance of the present
opposite party wife from the date of the application under Section 23 of the
Protection of Women from SectionDomestic Violence Act.
The order of maintenance granted to the present opposite party by the
Learned Appellate Court is under challenge.
During the course of hearing the Learned Advocate appearing for the
petitioner has contended that the Learned Appellant Court has committed an
error in granting interim maintenance in favour of the wife. She has assailed the
impugned order on the ground that the Learned Judge at the time of passing the
impugned order has overlooked to consider the conduct of the opposite
party/wife and granted the interim maintenance to her from the date of filing of
the application for maintenance. It is the specific contention of the petitioner,
the delay in disposal of the application was caused by the wife herself. Learned
Advocate for the petitioner has invited the attention of the Court to the copies of
orders of the Learned Magistrate passed in connection with case no.C-401/14
and has vigorously argued that the present opposite party/wife herself was
responsible for delay in disposal of the application for interim maintenance.
According to her contention Learned Appellate Court has committed an error in
awarding interim maintenance from the date of the filing of the application for
On the other hand, Learned Advocate appearing for the present opposite
party/wife has contended that hearing was not taken place due to the
adjournments sought for by the present petitioner/husband and Learned Judge
has rightly passed the impugned order directing the husband to pay interim
maintenance from the date of filing of the application for maintenance.
From the submission and counter submission made by the Learned
Counsel for the parties, it appears that main grievance of the petitioner/husband
regarding the direction of the Appellate Court to pay interim maintenance from
the date of filing of the application.
On perusal of the materials placed on record, it appears that the present
opposite party took several adjournments and also remained absent without
taking any step. The conduct of the opposite party was not at all satisfactory.
The opposite party/wife asked for interim maintenance but she herself was not at
all diligent and she herself remained absent before the Learned Magistrate when
the matter was called on for hearing. She herself was responsible for delay in
disposal of her application for interim maintenance.
I find force in the submission made by the Learned Advocate appearing for
the petitioner/husband. The order of maintenance granted to the wife is interim
It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that opposite party is
employed and she has sufficient means to maintain herself. This contention has
been denied by the opposite party. I do not think it proper to interfere with the
quantum of the maintenance right now. Moreover, at the time of considering the
prayer of interim maintenance the Court should not delve deep into the disputed
Considering the nature of impugned order and the submissions made by
the Learned Counsel for the parties, I do not find any reason to interfere with the
quantum of interim maintenance assessed by the Learned Judge in appeal. I
have already observed that the delay in disposal of the application for interim
maintenance was caused by the opposite party/wife as she sought for
adjournment on several occasions and remained absent before the Learned
Magistrate without taking any step. As such, I think that it would be reasonable
and justified to direct the petitioner to give interim maintenance from the date of
the order as passed by the Learned Appellate Court.
The order passed by the Learned Appellate Court hereby is modified to the
effect that the petitioner will pay interim maintenance to the opposite party/wife
from the date of the order passed by the Appellate Court in Criminal Appeal
no.17 of 2017. The impugned order dated 10.12.2018 passed in Criminal Appeal
no.17 of 2017 is hereby modified. The remaining portions of the impugned order
The application under Section 401 read with Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure is allowed in part.
Thus the application being C.R.R.No.414/2019 is disposed of.
Re: CRAN 2051 of 2019
In view of the order passed in CRR 414 of 2019, the present application
becomes infructuous and stands dismissed.
Urgent Photostat certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be given to
the parties, upon compliance with all necessary formalities.
(Madhumati Mitra, J.)