Sadhana Rakshit Roy vs Parimal Kumar Roy
2021 Latest Caselaw 3037 Gua

                                                                               Page No.# 1/2

GAHC010067792021




                              THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
   (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                                 Case No. : Crl.Pet./595/2021

            SADHANA RAKSHIT ROY
            W/O PARIMAL KUMAR ROY, HOUSE NO. 22,
            PRAGATI NAGAR, BHASKAR PATH,
            SATGAON, UDAYAN VIHAR
            GUWAHATI-781071, DIST. KAMRUP (METRO), ASSAM



            VERSUS

            PARIMAL KUMAR ROY
            SON OF LATE JATINDRA LAL ROY
            OFFICE ADDRESS- STATE BANK OF INDIA, COLONY MONE BRANCH,
            BARASAT, P.O. NABAPALLY, P.S. BARAST
            DIST- 24 PARGANAS, WEST BENGAL PIN-700124,
            PERMANENT ADDRESS- HOUSE NO. 221, SUBARNAPATTAN, P.O.
            NOWAPARA, P.S. BARASAT (KAJIPARA),
            DIST- 24 PARGANAS WEST BENGAL, PIN-700124



Advocate for the Petitioner   : MRS. M KAKATI

Advocate for the Respondent :




                                   BEFORE
                  HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI

                                          ORDER

23.11.2021 Heard Shri M. Kataki, learned counsel for the petitioner, who is aggrieved by an order Page No.# 2/2

dated 23.12.2020 passed by the learned Principal Judge-I, Family Court, Kamrup in F.C.(Crl.) Case No. 14/2010. The aforesaid case was filed under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that initial application filed under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. was adjudicated and the interim maintenance was granted, vide an order dated 08.09.2010. Subsequently, the said application was finally heard and vide an order dated 12.12.2011, the learned Family Court had rejected the prayer for maintenance on the ground that no justifiable reasons on the part of the petitioner were cited to stay separately from her husband respondent.

3. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid Judgment & Order dated 12.12.2011, the petitioner had filed a revision before this Court being Criminal Petition No. 253/2012. This Court vide an order dated 01.11.2018 while interfering with the Judgment & Order dated 12.12.2011 had remanded the matter to the learned Family Court for a fresh consideration. After the said remand, it is the case of the petitioner that even evidence were adduced. However, vide the present impugned order dated 23.12.2020, the learned Family court had rejected the application on the same grounds that there was not given justifiable reasons of the petitioner to stay separately.

4. Shri M. Kataki, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the ground of which the earlier petition was rejected was already interfered by this Court and remanded for a fresh consideration and therefore rejection of the application by the impugned order dated 23.12.2020 on the same ground is absolutely illegal and untenable in law.

5. Issue Notice, returnable by 6(six) weeks.

6. Petitioner to take steps for service of notice upon the sole respondent by registered post with A/D. Since, two addresses have been given of the sole respondent, steps be taken on both the addresses.

7. List accordingly.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant