Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 652 (GAU)

Tarun Chandra Goswami v. Joyshree Sarmah

2013-09-04

C.R.SARMA

body2013
JUDGMENT C.R. Sarma, J. 1. Heard Mr. N. Chakraborty, learned Counsel, appearing for the petitioner. By this application, filed under Section 397/398 and 401 Cr.P.C., the petitioner, namely, Sri Tarun Chandra Goswami, who is the husband of the respondent, has challenged the judgment and order, dated 07.08.2013, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Darrang, Mangaldai, whereby the learned Sessions Judge set aside order, dated 27.05.2013, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Darrang, Mangaldai, in MR Case No. 157/2013, with regard to the payment of interim maintenance allowance and upheld the order, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class regarding return of streedhan property. The respondent, claiming to be the wife of the petitioner No. 1, filed an application under Section 12 of Protection of Woman from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter called as "the Act") seeking relief under Sections 19, 20 and 22 of the Act. On receipt of the said application, the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Darrang, by the impugned order, dated 27.05.2013, passed in MR Case No. 157/2013, granted exparte monetary relief of Rs. 1500/- per month each in favour of the wife respondent and her minor child. The learned Magistrate, by the said order, also directed the petitioner to return the streedhan property, mentioned in the schedule of the application. 2. Aggrieved by the said order, the husband petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, Darrang, Mangaldai, on the grounds, amongst others, that the said order was passed without giving any notice to the petitioner. 3. Having heard the learned Counsel, appearing for both the parties, the learned Sessions Judge, by the impugned judgment and order, dated 07.08.2013 aforesaid, set aside the order regarding payment of monetary compensation on the ground of not giving an opportunity of being heard. 4. However, the learned Sessions Judge maintained the order regarding return of streedhan. The respondent, in her application, under Section 12 of the Act annexed the list of streedhan property and on the basis of the said list, the learned trial Judge directed the petitioner to return the said streedhan property. 5. From the record, it appears that the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class neither issued any notice to show-cause nor gave any opportunity of being heard to the accused/petitioner before directing him to return the streedhan property, in favour of the complainant i.e. the respondent. 6. 5. From the record, it appears that the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class neither issued any notice to show-cause nor gave any opportunity of being heard to the accused/petitioner before directing him to return the streedhan property, in favour of the complainant i.e. the respondent. 6. As the learned Sessions Judge has held that the order regarding payment of monetary relief was bad for not giving an opportunity of being heard, the same order regarding return of streedhan property also can not be maintained on the ground that no opportunity of being heard to the husband petitioner. Before issuing the said order requiring the petitioner to return the streedhan property, the learned Magistrate ought to have given an opportunity to the husband petitioner. The order dated 27.05.2013 does not reveal that there was any urgency requiring a direction for return the streedhan property, that too without issuing any notice to the husband petitioner. 7. In view of the above, in my considered opinion, for ends of justice, the accused petitioner should have been given an opportunity of hearing before passing the order for return of streedhan property. Therefore, in my considered opinion, the impugned order regarding return of streedhan property can not be maintained. Accordingly, the said order is set aside. However, the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Darrang, Mangaldai, is directed to pass necessary order regarding payment of interim relief and return of streedhan property, after giving notice to the accused petitioner. With the above this criminal revision petition is disposed of.