Prabir Kumar Chatterjee @ Probir ... vs The State Of West Bengal & Anr
2022 Latest Caselaw 566 Cal

 D/L 29                              C.R.R. No.657 of 2020
February                            (Via Video Conference)
15, 2022
    Bpg.

In Re: An application under Section 482 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973;

Prabir Kumar Chatterjee @ Probir Kumar Chatterjee Versus The State of West Bengal & Anr.

Mr. Biadurya Ghosal.

...for the petitioner.

Let the affidavit-of-service filed by the petitioner be kept

with the record.

The subject matter of challenge relates to the order dated

6.2.2020 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 4th Court-cum-

Railway Magistrate, Sealdah, South 24 Parganas in Misc. Case

No.05 of 2017 arising out of an application under Section 127 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure.

Mr. Ghosal, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner

submits that the learned Magistrate enhanced the maintenance

amount of Rs.7,000/- per month to Rs.11,000/- per month without

appreciating the evidence which was placed before the learned trial

court. According to the learned advocate, the petitioner is receiving

a sum of Rs.24,000/- per month and the same would be reflected

from the pension documents. Learned Magistrate had those

documents as admissible evidence and in spite of the same

enhanced the amount. Additionally, it has further been contended

that the learned Magistrate failed to appreciate the changed

circumstances under which the application under Section 127 of

the Code of Criminal Procedure was preferred.

In spite of service, none appears on behalf of the private

opposite party no.2/wife.

Having regard to the contentions so advanced by the

learned advocate for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that the

petitioner would go on paying the earlier amount of Rs.7,000/- per

month and the learned Magistrate in the meantime would re-assess

the evidence for arriving at a fresh finding regarding the quantum to

be awarded to the wife. Learned Magistrate is directed to scrutinise

the possible earnings of the husband being the present petitioner

and thereafter quantify/fix the amount of maintenance which he

thinks fit and proper to be enhanced.

Accordingly, the order dated 6.2.2020 is set aside. The

learned Magistrate would within sixty days from date arrive at a

fresh finding after analysing the evidences, which are already on

record. In case the learned Magistrate decides to award a sum

above Rs.7,000/- per month, in that case the arrears should be

equally distributed by way of instalments so that the petitioner, who

is also an aged person does not suffer. It is reiterated that under no

circumstances the earlier amount of Rs.7,000/- per month should

be defaulted by the petitioner during pendency or continuance of

the hearing of the proceeding under Section 127 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure.

With the aforesaid observations, CRR 657 of 2020 is

partly allowed.

Pending application, if any, is consequently disposed of.

Interim order, if any, is hereby vacated.

As directed earlier, the learned Magistrate would strict to

the time period and pass a fresh order/judgment.

All parties shall act on the server copy of this order duly

downloaded from the official website of this Court.

(Tirthankar Ghosh, J.)