In Re: Sri. Debasis Chaudhuri

Toufique Uddin, J.—This revision application arose out of an judgment dated 28.2.2011 in connection with Criminal Revision/Motion No. 174 of 2007 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, 1st Court, Hooghly reversing the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Court, Serampore in connection with Misc. Case No. 99 of 2003. None appears on behalf of the petitioner or on behalf of O.P. No. 2. Heard the learned counsel for O.P. No. 1.

The background of this revision in a nutshell is that the petitioner and the opposite party No. 1 are husband and wife and their marriage took place on 24.7.2001 according to Hindu Rights. Due to misunderstanding the O.P. No. 1 left her matrimonial home and started to stay at her parent''s house. In 2003, she preferred a Misc. Case No. 99 of 2003 u/s 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 against the present petitioner/husband before the learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Serampore which was later transferred to the 2nd Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Serampore. The present petitioner was contested there and after hearing of both sides, the learned J.M., 2nd Court, Serampore dismissed the case.

Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order the O.P. No. 1 preferred the criminal motion before the learned District & Sessions Judge, Hooghly and later it was transferred to the 1st Court of learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Hooghly as criminal motion No. 174 of 2007. On 28.2.2011, learned ADJ, 1st Court, Hooghly passed the judgment in the said criminal motion by reversing the order passed by the learned J.M., 2nd Court, Serampore in Misc. Case No. 99 of 2003.

Since none came on behalf of the petitioner, the case was taken up for hearing of the learned Counsel for the O.P. No. 1 for the purpose of disposal on merit.

It was contended by the learned counsel for O.P. No. 1 that there was an arrear in payment of maintenance for 18 months at the rate of Rs. 1500/- p.m. as ordered by learned ADJ, 1st Court, Hooghly on 28.2.2011 in CRM No. 174 of 2007 and the total amount stands at Rs. 26000/- but not a farthing has been paid by the present petitioner/husband to his wife.

Further, it was contended by the learned counsel for the O.P. No. 1 that the impugned order calls for no interference as there appears to be no illegality in the order.

A careful scrutiny of the impugned order shows that the present petitioner/husband took the plea that the wife of the husband was suffering from schizophrenia paranoid which is a kind of mental illness and that is why she voluntarily left for her matrimonial home. This contention of petitioner was rejected as the husband did not bring Dr. Mahadani who is alleged to have treated the wife and as such the Court of learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Hooghly held that by raising the plea of decease of schizophrenia paranoid against the wife, the husband caused mental cruelty and that is the just cause for her to leave her matrimonial home. Further, it is available that the order appears is a speaking one. Next comes the question of income of husband.

It appears from the order that one certificate of salary of the husband was proved in the learned court below pertaining to the year 2003 and considering all aspects of the matter, the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Hooghly granted maintenance to the extent of Rs. 1500/- p.m. Ex facie there appears to be no infirmity in the impugned order.

Accordingly, I do not find any merit in the instant appeal and the same stands dismissed.

I pass no order as to costs.

CRR No. 1246 of 2011 alongwith CRAN No. 2247 of 2012 connecting almost the same allegation stands disposed of. Urgent certified copies, if applied for, to be issued according to rules.