Soma Baidya vs Raju Baidya
2021 Latest Caselaw 1435 Cal

Form No. J(2)

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION

Present:

The Hon'ble Justice Jay Sengupta

C.R.R. 398 of 2021

Soma Baidya

-vs-

                        Raju Baidya


For the Petitioner         : Mr. G. K. Das


Heard on: 12.02.2021


Judgment on: 12.02.2021



Jay Sengupta, J.:

This is an application seeking an expeditious disposal of

Case No. M.Ex 38 of 2018 passed by the Learned Judicial

Magistrate, 10th Court, Alipore, South 24 Parganas.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner

submits as follows. The petitioner is the wife of the opposite

party. She was awarded interim maintenance allowance under

Section 125 of the Code in Case No. ACM 145 of 2016 at the

rate of Rs.3,000/- for the petitioner and Rs.1,000/- for the

minor child per month. The opposite party did not pay the

interim maintenance allowances. The petitioner was

constrained to file execution case for recovery of arrear

maintenance. Although the execution was filed in 2018, till the

same had not been disposed of. At least twenty four dates have

gone passed. In spite of this, the petitioner has not got the

relief she had sought before the learned Executing Court. The

opposite party husband would pay a miniscule sum to have a

warrant of arrest issued kept in abeyance, off and on. The

proceeding has remained pending for no fault of the present

petitioner.

I have heard the submissions of the learned counsel

appearing on behalf of the petitioner and have perused the

revision petition.

No prejudice will be caused to anyone if a direction for

an expeditious disposal of the proceeding is passed in this

case.

It appears that an inordinate delay has been occasioned

in the execution case.

The husband not complying with an order awarding

maintenance allowance is a serious matter. The wife cannot

be forced to live in penury in spite of being awarded an

amount as maintenance allowance.

In view of the above and in the interest of justice, I

request the learned executing court to conclude the

proceeding in the execution case as expeditiously as

possible, preferably within three months from the next date

of hearing.

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.)

134/Ct.32 rkd