Sri Madhab Milan Ghosh and Another vs State of West Bengal and Other

Asim Kumar Mondal, J.—This is an application u/s 397 / 401 read with 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The case of the petitioners is that the Opposite Party No. 2 Smt. Pranoti Ghosh the stepmother of petitioner No. 1. The petitioner No. 2 is the wife of petitioner No. 1. The Opposite Party No. 2 i.e. the step mother of petitioner No. 1 is being staying the same rented residence alongwith petitioners. Petitioner No. 1 has duly fulfilled his duties of a son towards his step mother. The petitioners have always taken every possible care of the Opposite party no. 2 and have provided for her medical expenses, food expenses etc. Admittedly, the relation between the petitioners and Opposite party No. 2 is not cordial. Several litigations are pending between them. The opposite party No. 2 has initiated the present case by filing an application before the Ld. Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Kolkata, u/s 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 whereby seeking relieves in terms of Sections 18/ 19/ 20/ 22 of the said Act. In the midst of present proceedings, the opposite Party No. 2 filed an application u/s 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, before the Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate, 16th Court, praying for an order of ad-interim maintenance from the petitioners at the rate of Rupees ten thousand per month, the Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate, 16th Court, Calcutta, by an order dated August 22, 2012, allowed the prayer of opposite Party No. 2 for ad-interim maintenance and directed the petitioners to pay a sum of Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees two thousand) per month, her within ten days of each succeeding month when it becomes due. That being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order of ad-interim maintenance, dated August 22, 2012, passed by the Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate, 16th Court, Calcutta, the petitioners preferred appeal u/s 29 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, before the Ld. Chief Judge, City Sessions Court, Calcutta. The said appeal was dismissed by upholding the order impugned.

Under the circumstances, being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order dated January 5, 2013, passed by the Ld. Chief Judge, City Sessions Court, Calcutta, in connection with criminal appeal No. 2/13 affirming the order passed by Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate, 16th Court, Calcutta. The petitioners moved the present application on the grounds that Ld. Chief Judge, City Sessions Court, Calcutta has passed the impugned order dated January 5, 2013, mechanically and arbitrarily which has caused custom prejudice to the petitioners. Further that Ld. Judge erred in law holding that the Opposite Party No. 2 has been neglected by the petitioners in respect of the fact that opposite Party No. 2 is staying with the petitioners in the same household. Further that the application for ad-interim maintenance was made by the Opposite Party No. 2 at belated stage only to frustrate the needs of justice.

Mr. Dipanjan Chatterjee, appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have never denied the Opposite Party No. 2 any sorts of maintenance and also petitioner No. 1 always regards the opposite party No. 2 as her mother. Admittedly, many cases are pending between the parties. In view of the order of Court, the operation of joint account has been stopped. The petitioners arranged everything towards the treatment and livelihood of his mother under such circumstances no question arises for maintenance.

Mr. Sourav Chatterjee, appearing on behalf of the Opposite party submits that the instant revisional application is not maintainable in the eye of law. Where a revisional petition has dismissed by the Sessions Court, a second revision would not lie to the High Court. Merely, by saying that the jurisdiction of the High Court for exercise of its inherent power was being invoked the statutory bar could not have over come. If that was to be permitted every revisional application bar of Section 397(3) of the Code could be leveled as u/s 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Mr. Sourav Chatterjee in support of his submission referred the ratio of decision of a case reported in 1990 (Supra) Supreme Court cases, 132 Rajan Kumar Machananda Vs. State of Karnataka.

In the instant case, against the order passed by the Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate, 16th Court, Kolkata, the petitioners preferred a revisional application before Ld. Chief Judge, City Sessions Court and they lost the appeal.

Petitioners have preferred the present application/revisional application u/s 397/ 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, against the order passed by Chief Judge, City Sessions Court, Calcutta. On careful perusal of the order impugned dated January 5, 2013, I found any irregularity, illegality or impropriety in the order impugned which requires interference of this Court. The relation of the party is admitted. Both the parties resides sharing the same premises. Nothing stated as to the income of the Opposite party No. 2 or petitioner No. 1. There is no bar to file an application for interim maintenance during the pendency of the proceedings. The ad-interim order of maintenance of Rupees two thousand per month in favour of the opposite Party No. 1 is of course subject to the conclusion of the hearing of the petition filed by the opposite Party No. 2 u/s 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

So, the order impugned No. 2 dated 5.1.2011 passed in criminal appeal No. 2 of 2013 by Ld. Chief Judge City Sessions Court, Calcutta remained uninterfered.

Thus, the revisional application is disposed of without any costs. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order if applied for be given to the parties on priority basis.