Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Sahajamal Sk. @ Tagor Sk vs State Of West Bengal on 8 February, 2021
Form No. J(2)
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
Present:
The Hon'ble Justice Jay Sengupta
C.R.R. 319 of 2021
Sahajamal Sk. @ Tagor Sk.
Vs.
State of West Bengal
For the petitioner : Mr. Imtiaz Ahmed
Mr. Diptendu Banerjee
Mrs. Ghazala Firdaus
Mrs. Sinthia Bala
Ms. Smita Saha
Ms. Supriya Majumder
Mr. Sk. Saidullah
Ms. Arunima Mukhopadhyay
Ms. Debopam Roy
Heard on: 08.02.2021
Judgment on: 08.02.2021
Jay Sengupta, J.:
This is an application challenging an order dated 26.11.2019
passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Katwa, Purba
Bardhaman in connection with Misc. Ex. No. 37 of 2015 (CIS-278/16)
thereby issuing warrant of arrest against the petitioner.
Leave is granted to amend the cause title and add the wife as
opposite party.
Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits as
follows. The wife/added opposite party got married to another person in
2012. The husband/petitioner had been paying interim maintenance
awarded to the wife under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
till 2012. The fact that the wife/opposite party had got married in 2012
was brought to the notice of the learned Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Katwa, Purba Bardhaman, by way of the application under
Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in 2020. However, in the
meantime, the present execution case filed in 2015 remained pending and
a warrant of arrest also remained pending execution in respect of the
same. The petitioner now has a good ground for not paying the
maintenance allowance awarded to the former wife.
I have heard the submission of the learned Counsel of the petitioner
and have perused the revision petition.
The point raised by the husband/petitioner that the wife/added
opposite party had got married in 2012 has surprisingly been brought to
the notice of the learned trial court only in 2020. However, the petitioner
has every right to have the said application adjudicated by the learned
trial court in accordance with law.
However, insofar as the present proceeding is concerned, the
execution case for recovery of arrears of maintenance allowance has been
pending since 2015. A warrant of arrest issued against the petitioner also
remained pending since long.
In view of the same, I do not find any justifiable reason to interfere
with the order issuing warrant of arrest passed by the learned executing
court.
It shall be open to the petitioner to surrender before the learned
executing court, make payment of half of the total sum due in this
execution case and pray for instalments for the rest of the dues and in
such event, the learned Magistrate shall consider the application in
accordance with law.
With these observations, the revisional application is disposed of.
Urgent photostat certified copy of the order, if applied for, be given
to the parties, upon usual undertakings.
(Jay Sengupta, J.)
