Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 357 (CAL)

Debajit Kumar Das v. Debarati Das (nee Bhar)

2020-03-04

JAY SENGUPTA

body2020
JUDGMENT Jay Sengupta, J. - This is an application challenging an order dated 18th December, 2019 passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court-2, Calcutta, in Misc. Case No.46 of 2017. 2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits as follows. It is true that the petitioner had received notice in respect of an application under section 125 of the Code filed by the wife/opposite party. He also filed a showcause in the proceeding, but thereafter, the petitioner could not appear before the learned trial court as he was posted at Amravati, Maharashtra, in connection with his job. In the meantime, he lost both his parents. In such circumstance, it was not proper on the part of the learned trial court to impose a cost of Rs.20,000/- on him while recalling the order for ex parte hearing of the case. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party /wife submits as follows. The learned trial court was absolutely right in holding that the petitioner had employed dilatory tactics only to harass the wife. Therefore, some cost has to be imposed on him while granting him a fresh chance to place his case. 4. I have heard the submissions of the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties and have perused the revision petition. 5. It may be true that the petitioner is posted at Amravati, Maharashtra, but the wife/opposite party cannot be held responsible for that. If a date is fixed in a proceeding under section 125 of the Code, it is incumbent upon the petitioner to appear there. If he fails to do so then appropriate orders would be passed. 6. However, it is also true that the petitioner was passing through some rough times as his parents had expired in the meantime. 7. Although, the learned trial court was within its right to impose a cost while granting another opportunity to the petitioner husband for placing his case, in the facts and circumstances, I find it appropriate to reduce the amount of cost to a sum of Rs.5000/-. 8. Accordingly, the impugned order is modified to the extent that the petitioner shall pay a cost of Rs.5000/- within a fortnight from this date. The rest of the order is not interfered with. 9. With these observations, the revisional application is disposed of. 10. 8. Accordingly, the impugned order is modified to the extent that the petitioner shall pay a cost of Rs.5000/- within a fortnight from this date. The rest of the order is not interfered with. 9. With these observations, the revisional application is disposed of. 10. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, is to be given to the parties upon usual undertakings.