Chandra Sekhar Saha vs Unknown
2022 Latest Caselaw 8509 Cal

20.12.2022

BR

CRR 2614 of 2010

In the matter of : Chandra Sekhar Saha

Mr. Saryati Datta, Mr. Chitrak Biswas .... For the petitioner

Mr. Binay Panda, Mr. Subham Bhakta .... For the State

Mr. Debashis Banerjee, Mr. S. Naskar,

Assailing the judgment and order dated 31 st

May, 2010 passed by learned Additional Sessions

Judge, 3rd Court, Howrah in Criminal Appeal No. 1 and

Criminal Appeal No. 3 of 2009 under Section 29 of the

Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005,

affirming the judgment and order passed by learned

Judicial Magistrate, 4th Court, Howrah in Misc. Case No.

217 of 2008 , filed by Smt. Malina Saha, the petitioner

Chandra Sekhar Saha has filed this application under

Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. From the

attending facts of the case it is admitted that the

petitioner as well as opposite party no. 1 are legally married man and wife. They have a daughter. The

opposite party no. 1 filed an application seeking

maintenance under Protection of Women from

Domestic Violence Act and learned trial Court was

pleased to allow a sum of Rs. 4,000/- each to Smt.

Malina Saha and her daugther Satavisha Saha. The

petitioner made an unsuccessful attempt to modify

and reverse the finding of learned trial Court in

criminal appeal. While admitting the appeal on 2 nd

September, 2010 interim order was passed directing

the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 8,500/- per month

towards the maintenance of his wife and her minor

daughter.

Mr. Saryati Datta, learned counsel

representing the petitioner submits that petitioner is

now a superannuated man and he has been shouldering

the medical expenses of his daughter.

Mr. Debasish Banerjee, learned counsel

representing the opposite party no. 1 submits that

the petitioner used to serve Central Excise and there

was a revision of pay. Therefore, considering his income

the amount fixed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court

to the tune of Rs. 8,500/- should be enhanced.

Way back in 2010 the petitioner was in service

and as submitted by Mr. Datta he is now

superannuated man.

Under such circumstances, I am inclined to direct

the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 8,500/- per month

as was directed on 2nd September, 2010. However, it

will be the responsibility of the petitioner being the

father to meet all expenses of his daughter relating to

her education , marriage and medical issues. The

impugned order is thus modified .

With this observation the criminal revision is

disposed of .

Let a copy of the judgment be sent down to

the learned trial Court for information and necessary

action.

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if

applied for, be given to the learned Advocates for the

parties on the usual undertakings.

( Siddhartha Roy Chowdhury, J. )