SWAPAN KR DAS Vs. ADITI DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revisional application is pertaining to a proceeding under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the "said Act of 2005"). The Opposite Party herein Smt. Aditi Das Filed an application under section 12 of the said Act of 2005 in the Court of Learned, Chief Judicial Magistrate at Burdwan praying for monetary relief as she was illtreated and ousted from her matrimonial house by the petitionerhusband herein. That matter was ultimately heard by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate at Burdwan in Miscellaneous Case No. 455 of 2008. The Chief Judicial Magistrate allowed the prayer of the Opposite Party ex parte and awarded Rs. 8000.00 per month as monetary relief and in addition to that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate also awarded compensation Rs. 50,000.00 to the Opposite. PartyWife for illtreatment. The petitioner herein challenged the order in an appeal being Criminal Appeal No. 7 of 2009 ultimately heard by Mr. A.K. Bhattacharjee, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Second Court at Burdwan. The learned Judge dismissed the, appeal on contest and thereby affirmed" the order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. The petitionerhusband has come up with this application challenging the legality, validity and propriety of the order passed in the Court, of Appeal. Mr. Sourav Sen, learned counsel appearing on behalfof the petitioner, submits that he has no objection what so ever in respect of the monthly monetary relief awarded by the learned, Court but it would be taxation on him if he is directed to pay Rs. 50,000.00 towards compensation. He submits further that compensation was awarded by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate and affirmed by the learned Appeal Court without assigning any reason whatsoever. He takes me to under section 22 of the act and contends that the order was passed exparte without assigning any reason. Therefore, according to him, the order impugned is liable to be set aside and interfered with.

(2.) Mr. Uday Shankar Chatterjee, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite partywife submits that the petitioner herein could have prayed for setting aside the ex parte order in the learned Trial Court in view of the provisions said down in section 28 of the Act itself. Instead of doing so, he preferred an appeal which had gone against him; Mr. Chatterjee submits further that in view of the provisions of section 22 of the Act Court can award compensation in addition to any relief as provided in the Act when it comes to a conclusion that the aggrieved person was illtreated. Mr. Chatterjee submits that the order is not suffering from any illegality, impropriety and' incorrectness and, as such, no interference is required.

(3.) I have carefully gone to the order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate as well as the learned Appeal Court; There is concurrent findings of fact and on the first blush, this Court does not like to interfere and upset the order. However, since a legal question as to necessity to assign reason has been raised, this Court is duty bound to explain the position of law.