Prithwish Gozi And Another vs The State Of West Bengal & Anr
2023 Latest Caselaw 3180 Cal

Form J(1)        IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
                    Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction
                               Appellate Side


Present :
The Hon'ble Justice Bibek Chaudhuri



                            CRR 558 of 2023

                       Prithwish Gozi and Another
                                  Vs.
                       The State of West Bengal & Anr.


Md. Bani Israil
            ..for the petitioner

Ms. Suranjana Bhattacharyya
           ..for the respondent


Item No.16

Heard & Judgment on:           03.05.2023

Bibek Chaudhuri, J.

Marriage of the petitioner No.1 was solemnized with the

opposite party No.2 on 10th March, 2010. On 12th June, 2015 the

opposite party No.2 left her matrimonial home in the year 2018. The

petitioner filed the suit for dissolution of marriage by a decree of

divorce.

The opposite party No.2 filed a proceeding under Section 12 of

the P.W.D.V. Act which was registered as M.C. Case No. 8 of 2019. It

is alleged by the petitioner that by suppressing summons the opposite

party No.2 obtained an ex parte order which the petitioner came to

know when he received the notice of Execution Case No. 41 and 42 of

2021. He made appearance in Execution Case No. 41 and 42 of 2021

and going on paying monetary allowance at the rate of Rs.10,000/-

per month.

Sometimes in December, 2022 the petitioner received another

notice of M. Execution Case No. 134 of 2022. When he came to know

about the criminal appeal No.11 of 2019 wherein monetary allowance

was granted at the rate of Rs.25,000/- per month. It is the case of

the petitioner that though the petitioner works as a physiotherapist,

he earns Rs.34,000/- per month. Therefore, it is not possible for the

petitioner to pay Rs.25,000/- per month. On the other hand, the

opposite party No.2 filed affidavit of assets where she claimed that

the petitioner earns rupees one lakh sixty thousand per month. In

the instant revision the petitioner wants to refute the affidavit of

assets which was filed by the opposite party No.2 in compliance with

the direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh versus Neha.

At this stage, in the instant revision I am not in a position to

consider the affidavit of assets.

If the petitioner has any ground for restoration of the appeal, he

is at liberty to take necessary action in accordance with law before the

learned Appellate Court. I do not find any merit in the instant revision

and accordingly, the instant revision is dismissed.

(Bibek Chaudhuri, J.)