SUBHAMOY CHATTERJEE Vs. LILY CHATTERJEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revisional application is directed against the order dated 8th March, 2001 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bankura in Criminal Revision No. 1 of 2001 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bankura in 21st October, 2000 passed by the learned CJM, Bankura in Misc. Execution Case No. 120 of 1999 which arose out of Misc. Case No. 152 of 1993 under Section 125 (3) of the Cr PC. The relevant facts in short are as follows :

(2.) The present petitioner, Subhamory Chatterjee, admittedly married the opposite party, Lily Chatterjee, according to Hindu rites. The opposite party-wife filed a petition for maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr PC before the learned CJM, Bankura praying for an order awarding maintenance in her favour and the learned CJM passed an interim order granting interim maintenance at the rate of Rs. 400/- per month with effect from the date of filing of the petition payable by the husband-petitioner to the opposite party-wife. But according to the opposite party- wife,nothing was paid by the petitioner-husband by way of maintenance in compliance with the above order of the Court and hence she filed the misc. execution case under Section 125 (3) of the Cr PC to realise the arrear amount of Rs. 18800/-. The learned CJM after admitting the petition passed an order issuing notice upon the husband fixing 3rd September, 1999 for service return and payment. On the date fixed no service return of the notice was received and accordingly another date, i.e., 11th October, 1999 was fixed for the same purpose. On that dated fixed, i.e., 11th October, 1999 it was found by the Court that service return of the notice along with the acknowledgement due card was received after due service. But the opposite party husband did not turn up in spite of the fact that he had received tha notice himself and under such circumstances the learned CJM issued warrant of arrest against him fixing 30th November, 1999 for ER.

(3.) Being aggrieved by that order, the husband has preferred the present revisional application challenging the said order as illegal and erroneous and hence unsustainable.