SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Sreepurna Lahiri vs Kallol Chatterjee & Ors on 29 March, 2017

1

67 29.03.2017

rkd   Ct. No.28                             C.R.R. 121 of 2017
                                                    with
                                            C.R.R. 3795 of 2015

                                          Sreepurna Lahiri
                                                 -vs-
                                       Kallol Chatterjee  Ors.


                     Mr. Sujan Chatterjee
                                                                      ....for the petitioner.

Petitioner has assailed the proceeding in Case No.121C of

2015 pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate under

Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act. It is contended in the

petition that the allegations in the said application do not

disclose any domestic violence and that the opposite party no.2

has instituted the instant proceeding three years after she had

left the matrimonial home.

I have perused the application under Section 12 of the

Domestic Violence Act. It has been alleged of the said application

that the opposite party no.2 was married to petitioner no.1 and a

female child was born from the said matrimony. It has been

alleged that she was subjected to mental and physical torture at

the matrimonial home. Subsequently, she started residing in a

flat purchased by her father. She was subjected to further

torture there in order to evict her from the said flat. Presently,

she is residing at her paternal home. Englishbazar P.S. Case

No.742/2012 dated 07.10.2012 under Section 498A/34 of IPC

has been registered at her behest.

Under such circumstances, she also instituted proceeding

under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act praying for

various reliefs. Prima facie, the allegations disclose domestic

violence perpetrated upon the petitioner. Failure to pay

monetary relief to the opposite party no.2 is a continuing wrong

and therefore I do not find any jurisdiction error in instituting
2

the instant proceeding after lapse of three years from the date on

which the opposite party was to have been driven out of the

matrimonial home. Hence, I do not wish to interfere with the

impugned proceeding at this stage.

Accordingly, CRR 3795 of 2015 is disposed of giving

liberty to the petitioner to agitate their grievances before the

learned Magistrate in accordance with law.

CRR 121 of 2017 has been filed by the petitioner praying

for expeditious disposal of the aforesaid proceeding instituted

under the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act.

Trial Court is directed to dispose of the said proceeding as

expeditiously as possible preferably within three months from

the date of communication of this order without granting

unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties.

All issues are kept open to be decided by the learned

Magistrate in accordance with law.

With the aforesaid direction, the CRR 121 of 2017 is

disposed of.

Certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the

parties on priority basis.

(Joymalya Bagchi, J.)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation