Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Chiranjib Mukherjee vs Unknown on 18 August, 2023
18.08.2023
Serial no. 68
[G.S.D]
CRR 4492 of 2022
With
CRAN 1 of 2023
In the matter of : Chiranjib Mukherjee
... ... Petitioner
Mr. Chiranjib Mukherjee
... For the Petitioner-in-person
Mr. Nilendu Bhattacharya
Mr. Abhinav Rakshit
Mr. Soumen Chatterjee
... For the Respondent
Mr. Anowar Hossain
Ms. Manisha Sharma
... For the State
This revisional application has been preferred
challenging the Judgment and Order dated 01.11.2022
passed by the Learned Additional District and Sessions
Judge, FTC V, Alipore, South 24 Parganas.
The subject-matter of the revisional application
relates to a proceeding under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C.,
wherein the Learned Revisional Court on an assessment of
the materials as also the judgment delivered in respect of an
interim maintenance by the Learned Judicial Magistrate, 4 th
Court, Alipore in ACM 329 of 2018, was pleased to award
interim maintenance to the two child to the tune of
Rs.4,000/- per month, for each of them, aggregating to a
sum of Rs.8,000/- per month.
The petitioner appearing-in-person submits that he
was working as an employee in the company of the wife. He
has been thrown out from his residence and is presently
without any employment and is spending his life from his
ancestral home.
The petitioner has also contended that there are
contradictory version in the judgment of the Learned
Revisional Court, as the Learned Revisional Court, while
deciding the revision failed to appreciate that there was no
scope for awarding maintenance, as the petitioner is without
any employment.
Mr. Bhattacharya, Learned Advocate appearing on
behalf of the O.P., submits that one of the child is suffering
from epilepsy and till date no amount has been contributed
by the father for the ailing son.
Be that as it may, the amount which has been
awarded is Rs.4,000/- for each child and the same is not
more than Rs.150/- per day. The quantum so awarded,
therefore, calls for no interference.
The petitioner was working as an employee, as such,
he is a person, who is able bodied and is liable to maintain
his child, who are of his own.
There may be facts which requires adjudication and
which also may be based on documents and factual
circumstances but the same has to be considered during the
main proceedings of trial under the provisions of Section 125
Cr.P.C.
The present maintenance award is by way of an
interim measure during the pendency of the main
proceeding.
Having regard to the reasons so assigned by the
Learned Revisional Court, while arriving at its conclusion and
finding, I am of the firm view that there is no scope of
interference in the present case.
So far as the contention of Mr. Bhattacharya,
Learned Advocate appearing for the Private O.P. is
concerned, he is at liberty to exhaust his remedies before
the appropriate forum.
Consequently, no interference is called for in the
present revisional application.
With the aforesaid observations, CRR 4492 of 2022 is
dismissed.
Pending application, if any, is also dismissed.
Parties to act on a server copy of this order, duly
collected from the official website of the Hon'ble High Court,
Calcutta.
Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if
applied for, be supplied to the parties, subject to compliance
with all requisite formalities.
(Tirthankar Ghosh, J.)
