Sujoy Poddar vs Balaka Poddar
2022 Latest Caselaw 836 Cal

Form No. J(2)

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION

Present:

The Hon'ble Justice Jay Sengupta

C.R.R. 429 of 2022

Sujoy Poddar

-vs-

                           Balaka Poddar



For the Petitioner             : Mr. Pronojit Roy
                                 Mr. Somnath Banerjee

For the Opposite Party         : Mr. Souvik Ganguli
                                 Ms. Sinthia Bala

Heard on                       : 25.02.2022


Judgment on                     : 25.02.2022



Jay Sengupta, J.:

This is an application challenging an order dated 18.01.2020

passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Court, Katwa, Purba

Burwan in Misc. Case No. 76 of 2020 under Section 125 of the Code

of Criminal Procedure.

Affidavit of service filed on behalf of the petitioner is taken on

record. Certified copy of an order dated 18.02.2022, as filed in

Court, is also taken on record.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits as follows. The

opposite party had filed an application for interim maintenance. In

the course of the proceedings, a direction was passed upon the

parties to file their affidavits of assets and in terms of the ratio laid

down in Rajnesh Vs. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324. The wife filed the

affidavit. However, the husband made an application for serving the

copies of certain documents upon him including copy of the said

affidavit of assets and liabilities. It is contended that unless the

husband receives a copy of the affidavit of assets and liabilities of the

wife, he would not be in a position to file his own affidavit of assets

and liabilities and prepare his defence. Although the petitioner was

granted liberty to pray for adjournment before the learned trial court

on the previous date i.e., on 18.02.2022, on the said date the learned

Magistrate adjourned the matter, but after imposition of a cost of Rs.

2,000/- upon the petitioner.

Leaned counsel appearing on behalf of the wife/opposite party

submits as follows. In order to file his own affidavit of assets and

liabilities, there is no need to be supplied with a copy of the affidavit

of assets and liabilities of the wife. However, before the final hearing

and after filing of respective affidavits of assets and liabilities, the

copies would obviously be exchanged.

I have heard the submissions of the learned counsels for the

parties and have perused the revision petitioner as well as the copy

of the order filed before this Court today.

The affidavits of assets and liabilities as directed to be filed by

the adverse parties in terms of the ratio of the Hon'ble Apex Court in

Rajnesh vs. Neha (supra) are not in the nature of an opposition and

a reply. The truth to be disclosed by a party is quite absolute and is

not dependant on the true disclosure by another. Therefore, it is not

necessary that a copy of such affidavit should be served on the other

side before the other could file his or her affidavit. In other words,

these affidavits are to be independently filed by the husband and the

wife and the husband would not require the wife's affidavit before

filing his own.

It goes without saying that before the husband and the wife

are asked to present their arguments, copies of the same have to be

exchanged.

Therefore, at this stage when the wife has only filed her

affidavit of assets and liabilities and husband has not, there is no

need to direct the wife to supply a copy of such affidavit to the

liabilities first after that the affidavits could be exchanged as per

direction of the learned trial court.

Therefore, I do not find any merit in this application.

Accordingly, the prayer of the petitioner is refused.

There shall be no order as to costs though.

However, I do not find any justification behind the imposition

of a cost of Rs. 2,000/- by the learned trial court on the last date

fixed before it although a liberty was granted by this Court to the

petitioner to pray or an adjournment.

Therefore, the imposition of a cost of Rs. 2,000/- by an order

dated 18.02.2022 passed by the learned Magistrate is hereby set

aside.

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