66 W.P. No. 2653(W) of 2019
Rampada Sardar Ors.
The State of West Bengal Ors.
Mr. Nibaran Kumar Das
Mr. Manish Kumar Das.
… for the petitioner.
Mr. Joyak Kumar Gupta.
… for the CESC Limited.
Mr. S. Adak.
… for the State.
Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner seeks a
direction upon the police to ensure that, the petitioner is in a position to
return to his residence and live there peacefully.
Learned advocate for the petitioner submits that, the third
petitioner was driven out from his home by his wife. Although, there are
proceedings under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (the Cr.
P. C.) and a criminal proceeding inter alia under Section 498A of the Indian
Penal Code (I.P.C.) pending, the petitioners are on bail. The third
petitioner is ready and willing to stay with his wife.
The State and the private respondent are represented.
Learned advocate for the private respondent submits that,
the petitioners left the house on their own. The petitioners are guilty of
torturing the private respondent. There is a daughter of two years of age
born out of the wedlock. The third petitioner is not paying any
maintenance despite the pendency of the proceedings under Section 125 of
the Cr. P. C. In fact, the petitioner is taking adjournment in such
Learned advocate for the State submits that, the
petitioners are on bail in the proceedings under Section 498A of the I.P.C.
In the facts of the present case, the petitioners complain
that, the private respondent has driven out the petitioners from their
residence. The facts depict that, the private respondent is the wife of
the third petitioner. She is maintaining herself without any financial
assistance from the third petitioner. The private respondent and the
third petitioner has a daughter born out of the wedlock, who is two years
old. Such a child requires support. The private respondent also requires
support. There is no order of maintenance in the proceedings under
Section 125 of the Cr. P. C. Learned advocate appearing for the
petitioners claims that, the third petitioner is not earning more than
Rs.4,000/- per month. He does not disclose any material in support of such
contention. It is unbelievable that a person with an income of Rs. 4,000/-
per month is in a position to survive as claimed by the third petitioner. The
records made available to Courts demonstrate that the third petitioner
underwent an operation at a hospital expending money. Therefore, he has
money available to himself which he is not willing to part with for the
purpose of maintaining of his wife and child. The petitioners are using
their financial position as a bargaining chip so as to enter the residence.
The private respondent is the wife of the third petitioner and as such is
entitled to reside at her matrimonial house. Such right is recognised in
the Domestic Violence Act. Therefore, it would be improper to dislodge
the private respondent from her matrimonial house. The fact that the
petitioners are using their financial position as a bargaining chip vis a vis
the private respondent disentitles their return to the matrimonial house of
the private respondent. The police will, therefore, ensure that none of the
petitioners are in a position to approach the private respondent or disturb
the private respondent in or about her matrimonial house in any manner
whatsoever. On a query from the Court, learned advocate for the
petitioner submits that, the third petitioner is in a position to pay
Rs.3,000/- per month as maintenance to his wife.
In the facts of the present case without prejudice to the
rights and contentions of the parties, particularly without prejudice to the
proceedings under Section 125 of the Cr. P. C., the third petitioner will pay
maintenance to the private respondent at the rate of Rs. 3,000/- per
month commencing from the date of initiation of the proceedings under
Section 125 of the Cr. P. C. till date. The arrears will be paid within seven
days from date. The petitioner will continue to pay the monthly
maintenance month by month subject to orders passed in the proceedings
under Section 125 of the Cr. P. C. within seven days of every month. In the
event of default, the private respondent is at liberty to execute this order
before the appropriate forum. The Court in seisin of the proceedings
under Section 125 of the Cr. P. C. is at liberty to arrive at any other figure
than fixed by this Court so far as maintenance is concerned.
W.P. 2653(W) of 2019 is disposed of without any order as to
Urgent certified website copies of this order, if applied for,
be made available to the parties upon compliance of the requisite
(Debangsu Basak, J.)