Prodyut Chkaraborty vs Unknown
2023 Latest Caselaw 6363 Cal

21.09.2023 24 & 25 cm

CRR 1181 of 2011 With CRR 178 of 2011

In the matter of : Prodyut Chkaraborty.

.... for the petitioner.

Mr. Sourav Chatterjee Mr. Soumya Nag .... for the petitioner.

Ms. Faria Hossain Mr. Anand Keshari ... for the State.

In Re: CRR 1181 of 2011

The notice was served upon the petitioner as per the

report of the Inspector-in-Charge, Kotwali Police Station, KPD,

Nadia. The notice could not be served upon the opposite party

No.2 as per the report of the Officer-in-Charge, Dhubulia Police

Station District Nadia. Let the said report be kept on record.

The report submitted by the Judicial Magistrate, 2 nd

Court, Krishnagar, Nadia dated 19.09.2023 stated that the

M.R. Case No. 140(IV) had been disposed of on 09.09.2011. Let

the same be kept on record.

Under such circumstances, the instant revisional

application has become infructuous and disposed of.

In Re: CRR 178 of 2011

The instant revisional application has been filed against

judgment and order dated 27th September, 2010 passed by the

learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, 4th Court,

Krishnagar, Nadia in Criminal Motion No. 94 of 2007 which

was pending before the learned Additional District & Sessions

Judge, 4th Court, Krishnagar, Nadia thereby setting aside the

judgment and order dated 30 th April, 2007 passed by the

learned Judicial Magistrate, 2 nd Court, Krishnagar, Nadia in

M.R. Case No. 146(IV)/2003 under Section 125 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure and directing the petitioner to pay

maintenance to the opposite party No. 2 at the rate of Rs.

900/- per month and Rs. 350/- per month to the minor child

of the opposite party No.2 from the date of filing of the case

and further directing the petitioner to liquidate the arrear

maintenance amount by four equal monthly installments to be

paid by the 10th day of each month, first of which shall be

payable in the month of October, 2010.

Perused the petition as well as the impugned order, this

court does not find any infirmity or impropriety in the

impugned order. Accordingly, this court is not inclined to interfere

with the same.

Accordingly, the instant revisional application is

dismissed.

Copy of the order be sent to the Department as well as

trial court for information.

(Ananya Bandyopadhyay, J.)