Abhishek Mondal vs The State Of West Bengal & Anr
2022 Latest Caselaw 2415 Cal

Form No. J(2)

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION Present:

The Hon'ble Justice Jay Sengupta

C.R.R. 949 of 2022

Abhishek Mondal

-vs-

The State of West Bengal & Anr.

For the Petitioner : Mr. Debapratim Guha Mr. Rajdeep Bhattacharya

For the opposite party No.2 : Mr. Siddhartha Sarkar Mr. M. Mandal

Heard on : 28.04.2022

Judgment on : 28.04.2022

Jay Sengupta, J.:

This is an application challenging an order dated 7.03.2022

passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 5th Court, Barrackpore,

North 24 Parganas in M Case No. 480 of 2018.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits as follows. The

opposite party No.2 filed an application under Section 125 of the

Code claiming maintenance allowance from the petitioner. The

petitioner had filed an application for non-maintainability on the

ground that the purported marriage between the two took place

when he was a minor. The same was dismissed. The order was

challenged before the learned Sessions Court. The revision was

dismissed with a cost of Rs. 5,000/-, which was to be paid within 15

days. But, the petitioner could not arrange the said sum and could

not pay the same in time. On 07.03.2022 he made a prayer before

the learned trial court for permission to submit the said cost of Rs.

5,000/- and to allow him to participate in the proceeding. The

Learned Magistrate did not allow the petitioner to put in the cost and

fixed a date for ex party hearing of the application of interim

maintenance. The proceeding is fixed before the learned trial court

today, i.e. on 28.04.2022.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the private opposite

party submits as follows. Since the revisional application did not

have any merit, the same was dismissed by the learned Sessions

Court with a cost of Rs. 5,000/- that was to be deposited within 15

days. Thereafter the petitioner had sufficient opportunity to put in

the cost, but he did not do so. On 07.03.2022 he made application to

pay the cost. The main application under Section 125 of the Code

had been filed in the year 2018 and till date even the application of

the petitioner for interim maintenance could not be decided.

I have heard the submissions of the learned counsels for the

petitioner and the private opposite party and have perused the

revision petition.

It is unfortunate that although the application for maintenance

allowance was filed by the opposite party in 2018, till date even the

question of interim maintenance could not be decided.

However, if the petitioner is willing to put into the cost

imposed by the learned Sessions Judge, he may be permitted to do

so and participate in the proceeding so that his right of hearing is

not impaired.

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

learned trial court to allow the petitioner to deposit the cost within

seven days from this date and fix and/or prepone the date in the

month of May, 2022 and decide the question of interim maintenance

payable to the opposite party on the said date after hearing the

parties.

The petitioner shall not pray for any adjournment on the said

date fixed for hearing.

With these observations, the revisional application is disposed

of.

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order may be supplied

to the parties expeditiously, if applied for.

(Jay Sengupta, J.)

tbsr