ANGSHUMAN CHAKRABORTY Vs. ARPITA BANERJEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has preferred this revisional application under Section 401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 challeging the judgment and order dated February 27, 2015 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, 2nd Court, Durgapur, in Criminal Appeal No.41 of 2014 affirming the order dated September 25, 2014 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Durgapur, in Misc. Case No.69 of 2013, by which learned Judges of the court below directed the petitioner husband to make payment of interim maintenance @ Rs.5,000/- per month in favour of the opposite party wife.

(2.) It appears from the materials on record that the opposite party wife filed an application under Section 23(1) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the Domestic Violence Act) against the petitioner husband before the court of learned Magistrate praying for interim maintenance @ Rs.15,000/- per month on the ground that the opposite party wife was compelled to live in the house of her parents and that she has no income for maintenance of her livelihood, whereas the petitioner husband earns about Rs.80,000/- per month as an Engineer who passed out from IIT. The petitioner husband filed written objection against the application filed by the opposite party wife. Ultimately, on September 25, 2014, learned Judicial Magistrate directed the petitioner husband to make payment of interim maintenance w.e.f. the date of the order. The said order passed by learned Magistrate was challenged by the petitioner husband before the court of sessions by preferring Criminal Appeal No.41 of 2014. On February 27, 2015, learned Additional Sessions Judge, 2nd Court, Durgapur, disposed of the said criminal appeal by affirming decision passed by learned Magistrate. The judgment and order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge in the said criminal appeal is under challenge in this revision.

(3.) Mr. Sandipan Ganguly, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner husband has started proceeding under Section 25 of the Special Marriage Act against the opposite party wife praying for annulment of the marriage. The said matrimonial proceeding being MAT Suit No.2797 of 2011 is pending for hearing before the court of learned District Judge at Alipore. Mr. Ganguly further submits that the opposite party wife filed an application under Section 24 o the Code of Civil Procedure before this High Court for transfer of the matrimonial proceeding from the court of learned District Judge at Alipore to the court of learned Additional District Judge, Assansol. The copy of the application filed by the opposite party wife in the said proceeding being C.O. No.514 of 2012 is annexed to the revisional application and marked as Annexure P-5. By referring to paragraph 4 of the said application filed by the opposite party wife before this Court, Mr. Ganguly contends that the opposite party wife has specifically stated that after registration of the marriage between the opposite party wife and the petitioner on November 2, 2011 they left for their respective parental houses. He has also pointed out from the application filed by the petitioner before the trial court challenging the maintainability of the proceeding that the petitioner husband has disclosed in the said application that the husband and wife left for their respective parental houses after registration of the marriage on November 2, 2011 under the Special Marriage Act, 1954. According to Mr. Ganguly, this fact was not considered by learned Magistrate and learned Additional Sessions Judge in proper perspective and as such, the petitioner is highly prejudiced. By referring to the definition of "domestic relationship" appearing in Section 2(f) of the Domestic Violence Act, Mr. Ganguly has urged this Court to consider that the petitioner and the opposite party never lived together in the shared household and as such there is no domestic relationship between the petitioner and the opposite party. Again, by relying on the definition of "aggrieved person" appearing in Section 2(a) of the Domestic Violence Act, Mr. Ganguly also submits that the opposite party wife cannot be aggrieved person for starting a proceeding either under Section 12 or under Section 23 of the Domestic Violence Act. By referring to the statement of objects and reasons behind enacting the Domestic Violence Act, Mr. Ganguly has urged this court to give literal interpretation of the definition of Section 2(f) of the said Act, as there is no ambiguity in the definition to fulfil the object of the legislation. The specific submission made by Mr. Ganguly is that the opposite party wife is not in domestic relationship with the petitioner husband and as such she cannot be considered to be an aggrieved person under Section 2(a) of the Domestic Violence Act and as such the order passed by learned Judges of the court below are liable to be set aside.