Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 606 (CAL)

TASHMITA PAL v. SUMAN PAL

2015-07-23

RANJIT KUMAR BAGCHI

body2015
JUDGMENT : Ranjit Kumar Bagchi, J. The petitioner has preferred this revisional application challenging the order dated April 21, 2015 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, 2nd Fast Track Court, Bichar Bhawan, in Criminal Appeal no. 89 of 2014, by which learned Judge of the trial court affirmed the order dated August 11, 2014 passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 5th Court, Calcutta, in Misc. Execution Case no. 12 of 2013. 2. It appears from the materials on record that the petitioner filed an application under Section 12 read with Sections 17/18/19/20/21/22 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 against her husband, parents-in-law and sister-in-law before the court of learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta. It further appears from record that on April 27, 2012, the learned Magistrate gave direction to the opposite party/husband to make payment of maintenance at the rate of Rs. 30,000/- per month in favour of the petitioner/wife and her two minor children, Rs. 5,000/- at a time as litigation cost and Rs. 15,000/- per month as rent for any accommodation of the petitioner and her two minor children. This order dated April 27, 2012 passed by learned Magistrate in connection with Case no. C-30 of 2012 was not challenged by the opposite parties before the higher forum. It also appears from record that on July 27, 2012, the opposite party no. 1/husband filed an application before the court of learned Magistrate praying for modification of the earlier order in connection with providing cost of accommodation to the petitioner by offering accommodation of the father-in-law of the petitioner. On August 27, 2012, the learned Magistrate modified the earlier order dated April 27, 2012 by cancelling the direction of payment of Rs. 15,000/- per month towards cost of accommodation to the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner will reside in the ground floor premises of the father-in-law at BJ-55, Sector-II, Salt Lake City, Calcutta. The father-in-law of the petitioner filed an application before the court of learned Magistrate for modification of the order dated August 27, 2012 and for direction to the petitioner to hand over the keys of the ground floor premises of the father-in-law at Salt Lake City on the ground that the petitioner is not residing in the said accommodation and the ground floor premises is being damaged as it is under constant lock and key. On August 11, 2014, learned Magistrate gave direction to the petitioner to hand over the key of ground floor premises of her father-in-law at Salt Lake City within a period of 14 days from the date of the order. The petitioner challenged the said order passed by learned Magistrate before the court of sessions by preferring Criminal Appeal no. 89 of 2014. The learned Additional Sessions Judge disposed of Criminal Appeal no. 89 of 2014 on April 21, 2015 by affirming the order passed by learned Magistrate on August 11, 2014. The said judgement and order dated April 21, 2015 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge in Criminal Appeal no. 89 of 2014 is under challenge in the instant revision. 3. Mr. Siladitya Sanyal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, contends that learned Magistrate gave direction to the husband of the petitioner to make payment of Rs. 15,000/- towards cost of accommodation at the time of passing the interim order on April 27, 2012 and the said order was modified by learned Magistrate by cancellation of the direction to make payment of cost of accommodation when the petitioner was offered accommodation in the ground floor premises of her father-in-law at Salt Lake City. By referring to the letter dated February 2, 2013 filed by the petitioner before the Officer-in-Charge of Bidhannagar East Police Station which was entered in General Diary no. 91 dated February 2, 2013, Mr. Sanyal submits that the petitioner was unable to stay in the accommodation provided by the father-in-law of the petitioner as the petitioner was not getting sufficient water in the premises and she was unable to operate the pump as the pump was put under padlock. According to Mr. Sanyal, the petitioner was compelled to leave the accommodation of the father-in-law, but learned Magistrate directed the petitioner to hand over the key of the said accommodation to the father-in-law of the petitioner without restoring the previous order of providing cost of accommodation at the rate of Rs. 15,000/- per month. Mr. Sanyal submits that the petitioner is facing much inconvenience and hardship in spite of sufficient income of the husband of the petitioner who is working in the United States. 4. Mr. Krishnendu Bhattacharya, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party nos.1 to 3, submits that there was no ground for leaving the accommodation provided to the petitioner. Mr. Sanyal submits that the petitioner is facing much inconvenience and hardship in spite of sufficient income of the husband of the petitioner who is working in the United States. 4. Mr. Krishnendu Bhattacharya, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party nos.1 to 3, submits that there was no ground for leaving the accommodation provided to the petitioner. According to Mr. Bhattacharya, the petitioner left the accommodation of the father-in-law without sufficient cause and as such she is not entitled to get cost of accommodation as provided initially by learned Magistrate. Mr. Bhattacharya submits that the order passed by learned Magistrate and the order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge are justified under the law. 5. It appears from the complaint filed by the petitioner before the Officer-in-Charge of Bidhannagar Police Station (East) on February 2, 2013 that the petitioner started living along with her two minor children in the ground floor premises of her father-in-law at Salt Lake City. It appears from the said complaint that the father-in-law, mother-in-law and sister-in-law of the petitioner are residing in the first floor of the same premises of Salt Lake City. The petitioner has alleged in her complaint that the flow of water in the ground floor premises was stopped very often and she was not in a position to operate the pump as the pump was put under padlock. It is also alleged in the said complaint that she was abused with filthy language and threatened with physical violence and dire consequences and as such it has become extremely difficult for her to stay in the ground floor premises of the father-in-law of the petitioner at Salt Lake City. Had there been an ill intention on the part of the petitioner to extract money from the husband, she would not have ventured to shift to the ground floor of the premises of the father-in-law at Salt Lake City. The act of stoppage of flow of water in the ground floor premises coupled with threat and abuse of the petitioner with filthy language justifies the action of the petitioner to leave the ground floor accommodation of the father-in-law at Salt Lake City. Since the petitioner is compelled to leave the ground floor premises of the father-in-law, the petitioner is entitled to get the cost of accommodation as initially provided by learned Magistrate under the order dated April 27, 2012. Since the petitioner is compelled to leave the ground floor premises of the father-in-law, the petitioner is entitled to get the cost of accommodation as initially provided by learned Magistrate under the order dated April 27, 2012. Learned Magistrate should have restored the order of providing cost of accommodation to the petitioner at the time of giving direction to the petitioner to hand over the key of the ground floor premises in favour of the father-in-law of the petitioner. Learned Additional Sessions Judge should have considered this aspect of the case made out by the petitioner while disposing of Criminal Appeal no. 89 of 2014. 6. In view of my above findings, the judgment and order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, 2nd Fast Track Court, Barasat, in Criminal Appeal no. 89 of 2014 is set aside. The opposite party/husband, Suman Pal, is directed to make payment of Rs. 15,000/- per month to the petitioner towards cost of accommodation as long as suitable accommodation will not be provided to the petitioner by the opposite party/husband. This order takes effect from the date of which the petitioner will hand over the key of ground floor premises at Salt Lake City in favour of the father-in-law of the petitioner. 7. The criminal revision is, thus, disposed of. 8. Urgent photostat certified copies of this order, if applied for, be given to the learned counsel for the parties, upon compliance of all formalities.