1

28 12.09.2019

CRR 1519 of 2019
pk Court No. 33
(SectionTapan Kumar Sutar vs. State and another)

Mr. Santanu Deb Roy
… for the petitioner

Mr. Saryati Datta
… for the State.

The petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 04.04.2018 passed in Misc.

Case No. 0057019 of 2016 arising out of T. R. No. 1068 of 2016 under the

provisions of the D. V. Act, passed by the learned 19th Metropolitan Magistrate at

Calcutta.

The detailed facts have been set out in the impugned order where the

opposite party/wife has been able to demonstrate the reason why she was

compelled to leave her matrimonial house. A proceeding under Section 498A was

also registered against the petitioner.

The court below has recorded the statement of the opposite party no. 2

that the petitioner was earning Rs.60,000/- per month from his business, although

it is equally recorded in the order that the petitioner is an employee in a shop

earning only Rs.4,000/- per month. The court below has taken a prima facie view of

the matter and has allowed a sum of Rs.3,000/- towards the rental accommodation

of the opposite party and sum of Rs.4,000/- towards her maintenance.

Since the sum awarded is a bare necessity and extremely meagre and

the petitioner has not been able to demonstrate with any serious evidence that he is

an employee of shop. A letter dated 20th June, 2019 stated to have been issued by

the proprietor of one Dipak Food Products at Kanpur that he earns Rs.4,000/- is

annexed to the revisional application.

This Court is unable to accept the said letter as the gospel truth.

The discretion exercised by the learned 19th Metropolitan Magistrate at
2

Calcutta in the impugned order does not call for any interference.

In those circumstances, the instant revisional application must fail and

is hereby dismissed.

Urgent certified photostat copy of this order, if applied for, shall be given

to the parties as expeditiously as possible on compliance of all necessary formalities.

(Rajasekhar Mantha, J.)