Saraswati (Paul) Karmakar vs Babul Chandra Karmakar
2025 Latest Caselaw 4009 Gua

Gauhati High Court

Saraswati (Paul) Karmakar vs Babul Chandra Karmakar on 11 March, 2025

Author: Parthivjyoti Saikia

Bench: Parthivjyoti Saikia

                                                                             Page No.# 1/3

GAHC010039362023




                                                                   undefined

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

                                 Case No. : Crl.Rev.P./87/2023

            SARASWATI (PAUL) KARMAKAR
            W/O SRI BABUL CHANDRA KARMAKAR
            R/O VILL- KONABORI, JAGIROAD,
            DIST. MORIGAON, ASSAM
            PIN-782410



            VERSUS

            BABUL CHANDRA KARMAKAR
            S/O SRI RABINDRA CHANDRA
            KARMAKAR
            R/OJAGIROAD,
            DRY FISH MARKET AVARANI JEWELLERS,
            PO. AND P.S. JAGIROAD,
            DIST. MORIGAON, ASSAM
            PIN-782410



Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR R M DAS, D JAIN,MR. C SHARMA,P. NAIDING

Advocate for the Respondent : MR. M DASGUPTA, MR B K KAR,MS J CHAKRABORTY,MD S
ALI
                                                                                              Page No.# 2/3




                                     BEFORE
                    HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA

                                                  ORDER

11.03.2025

Heard Mr. R M Das, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B.K. Kar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

This is an application under Sections 397/401 of the CrPC challenging the order dated

15.02.2023 passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Morigaon in CR(DV) Case No. 1136/2014.

On 01.02.2016, the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Morigaon in CR Case No. 1136/2014 directed the present petitioner to provide residential accommodation to the respondent. The court also directed to pay monetary relief of Rs.3,500/- per month to the respondent.

Thereafter, on 15.02.2023, the court below passed a direction asking the officer in charge of Jagiroad Police Station to shift the household articles of the respondent from her present house to the renovated house. Police was also directed to help the respondent in that situation.

Aggrieved by the aforesaid direction, the present revision petition has been filed. Mr. Kar has submitted that, by filing this revision petition, the present petitioner has challenged the entire judgment passed by the court below. According to Mr. Kar, the order dated 15.02.2023 was passed towards execution of the final judgment dated 01.02.2016. The learned counsel has pointed out that though Section 29 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 provides for an appeal to the court of sessions, no appeal was filed. According to Mr. Kar, this revision petition itself is not maintainable when there is a provision for filing an appeal.

Per contra, Mr. Das has agreed to that and submitted that the petitioner will file an appeal before the court of sessions. Mr. Das has submitted that till the petitioners files an appeal, the order dated 15.02.2023 should be stayed.

I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel of both sides. It is a settled proposition of law that when there is a provision for filing an appeal against a judgment, no revision is maintainable against such a judgment.

Regarding revisional power of a court, in the case of Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander, (2012) 9 Page No.# 3/3

SCC 460, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:

"20. The jurisdiction of the court under Section 397 can be exercised so as to examine the correctness, legality or propriety of an order passed by the trial court or the inferior court, as the case may be. Though the section does not specifically use the expression "prevent abuse of process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice", the jurisdiction under Section 397 is a very limited one. The legality, propriety or correctness of an order passed by a court is the very foundation of exercise of jurisdiction under Section 397 but ultimately it also requires justice to be done. The jurisdiction could be exercised where there is palpable error, non- compliance with the provisions of law, the decision is completely erroneous or where the judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily. On the other hand, Section 482 is based upon the maxim quando lex aliquid alicui concedit, concedere videtur id sine quo res ipsa esse non potest i.e. when the law gives anything to anyone, it also gives all those things without which the thing itself would be unavoidable. The section confers very wide power on the Court to do justice and to ensure that the process of the court is not permitted to be abused."

Coming back to the case in hand, this court is of the opinion that when there is a provision for appeal, the present revision petition is not maintainable in law.

For the aforesaid reason, the revision petition is dismissed and disposed of accordingly

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant