Biplab Das & Ors vs Srabani Das & Anr
2022 Latest Caselaw 809 Cal

Form No. J(2)

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION

Present:

The Hon'ble Justice Jay Sengupta

C.R.R. 330 of 2021

Biplab Das & Ors.

-vs-

Srabani Das & Anr.

For the Petitioners           : Ms. Sohini Bhattacharyya


Heard on                      : 24.02.2022
Judgment on                    : 24.02.2022



Jay Sengupta, J.:

This is an application challenging an order dated 22.08.2019

passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 3rd Court, Alipore, South 24

Parganas in Case No. AC 822 of 2017 under the provisions of

Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits as follows. The

petitioners are the husband and the other in-laws of the opposite

party no.1/wife. The petitioner no.1 and the opposite party no. 1 got

married in 2015. After that, disputes cropped up between the

parties. In 2017, the private opposite party filed an application

claiming relief under the provisions of Protection of Women from

Domestic Violence Act. The wife alleged that she was tortured and

driven out from the matrimonial home and that the husband was

having an affair with somebody. By an order dated 22.08.2019 the

learned trial court granted interim monetary relief of Rs. 2500/- per

month to be paid by petitioner no. 1 to the opposite party no. 1. The

petitioner no. 1 is a driver by profession and he was unemployed

mostly during the pandemic period. Therefore, it would be

absolutely impossible for him to pay interim maintenance allowance

to the wife. The main application under the said Act is still pending.

I have heard the submissions of the learned counsel appearing

for the petitioners and have perused the revision petition.

First, the revisional application is barred by limitation because

an order dated 22.08.2019 has been challenged in 2021 without

filing an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

Secondly, on merits, it appears that the opposite party no. 1

had claimed that her husband was having a travel business and

owned a Tata Sumo car and from these, he was earning more than

Rs. 50,000/- per month.

Even if one goes by the admission of the petition that

petitioner no.1 is working as a driver, a sum of Rs. 2500/- per

month to be paid to the wife as in interim maintenance allowance is

not too high. This comes to less than Rs. 100/- per day.

In view of the above, I do not find any merit in this application.

Accordingly, the revisional application is dismissed.

However, there shall be no order as to costs.

This order shall also not come in the way of the petitioner in

raising all the points taken up in this application at the time of final

hearing of the application filed under the provisions of the Protection

of Women from Domestic Violence Act.

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order may be supplied

to the parties expeditiously, if applied for.

(Jay Sengupta, J.)

tbsr