NITHA RANJAN CHAKRABORTY Vs. KALPANA CHAKRABORTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revisional application is directed against the judgment and order dated 24th August, 2001 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 6th Court , Alipore in its revisional jurisdiction in Cri.Motion No.209/2001. By the said order, the learned Additional Sessions Judge allowed the revisional application which was filed against the judgment and order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore , dated 23rd, March, 2001 in T.R. No.295/99 whereunder the learned Magistrate allowed the petition under S.125, Cr. P.C in part awarding a sum of Rs.1200/ per month in favour of the wife with effect from the date of order i.e. 23rd March, 2001. Being aggrieved by that order, the wife had filed the said revisional application on the ground that the order ought to have taken effect from the date of application and not from the date of order. The learned Additional Sessions Judge accepted this contention of the revisional applicant wife and passed the impugned order by awarding the maintenance at the rate at which the learned A.C.J.M. awarded it giving its effect from the date of application instead of the date of the order. The learned Additional Sessions Judge also found that both the sons of the petitioner wife were minor being aged about 19 years and 15 years at the time of filing of the application and hence those two sons were found entitled to get maintenance till they attained majority.

(2.) BEING aggrieved by this order, the husband has preferred this revisional application under S. 401 read with S.482 of Cr. P.C. challenging the said order as illegal and improper.

(3.) GIVING careful consideration to this aspect of the argument, I am of the opinion that the Court below by not assigning any reason, of course, committed an act of impropriety since at the first instance, in view of legal provision he was so to consider the question of giving effect to the order of maintenance from the date of order but since he did not accept that course to be a prudent one, under the given circumstance he considered it fit to give effect to the order from the date of application, he must have put a few words by way of reason as to why he was not adopting the first course. But his omission to assign any such reason should not be carried to the extent of being taken as a ground for rendering the order liable to be set aside, if otherwise it is in order: