Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 69 (CAL)

Samir Kumar Sen v. Archana Sen nee Dutta

2017-01-12

INDRAJIT CHATTERJEE

body2017
JUDGMENT : Indrajit Chatterjee, J. 1. This is an application under Section 227 of the Constitution of India in which the judgment and order dated August 05, 2013, as passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, 2nd Court, Barrackpore, North 24-Parganas in Criminal Appeal NO. 6 of 2012 has been assailed before this Court. 2. As per impugned order, the 1st Appellate Court was pleased to modify the order dated February 18, 2012 as passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 4th Court, Barrackpore in connection with the Misc. Case No. 7 of 2011 under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act of 2005). It may be mentioned that the learned Trial Court rejected the application of wife praying for interim maintenance. 3. As per the impugned order the learned 1st Appellate Court was pleased to direct this husband/petitioner to pay Rs. 3,000/- per month to the appellant/wife payable within 10th day of each succeeding English calendar month subject to adjustment of the amount paid in terms of order of Mat. Suit No. 46 of 2001 (renumbered as Mat. Suit No. 15 of 2010). This order of payment of maintenance amount is interim in nature. This petitioner, since retired from service, was an employee, Commercial Taxes. 4. It is the grievance of Mr. Bhabani Prasad Mondal, learned Advocate representing the petitioner that this order be modified to this extent that this petitioner be directed to go on paying Rs. 2,200/- per month in favour of his wife as ordered by this Court on November 26, 2013 5. His claim is contested by Mr. Shahjahan Hossain, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the wife/opposite party. He submits Rs. 3,000/- is very small amount and his client is under very financial strain. 6. Rs. 3,000/- only in these days is nothing to maintain the opposite/herself and I do not like to concede to the prayer of the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner that this amount of Rs. 3,000/- be reduced to Rs. 2,200/-. 7. Thus, this criminal revisional application is dismissed. This husband will go on paying Rs. 3,000/- per month as ordered by the learned 1st Appellate Court, subject to any adjustment in terms of the order passed in Mat. Suit 46 of 2001. 8. 3,000/- be reduced to Rs. 2,200/-. 7. Thus, this criminal revisional application is dismissed. This husband will go on paying Rs. 3,000/- per month as ordered by the learned 1st Appellate Court, subject to any adjustment in terms of the order passed in Mat. Suit 46 of 2001. 8. The learned Trial Court is directed to dispose of the main application under the said Act of 2005 preferably within six months from the date of communication of this order. 9. Let a copy of this order be forwarded to the learned Trial Court at once. 10. Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties, on priority basis.