PRADIP KUMAR MUKHERJEE Vs. CHAITALI ALIAS MOLI MUKHERJEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revisional application under Section 401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is taken up along with the application for vacating the interim order filed by the wife opposite party No. 1 on 10-3-1995, for hearing.

(2.) By the instant revisional application, the petitioner has challenged the order and/or Judgement dated 3rd March, 1994, passed in Case No. M-135 of 1991, by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, 5th Court, Barrackpore 24 Parganas (Sougth), whereby the learned Magistrate upon an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the wife opposite party No. 1 herein granted to the wife opposite patty No. 1 a monthly maintenance of Rs. 400/- to be paid month by month within the 2nd of every month and the petition was allowed and the husband (petitioner herein) was directed to pay the said sum at the rate since the date of filing the application. Against that order the husband (petitioner herein) moved this Court in revision and a single Bench of this Court by its order dated 17th May, 1994, while directing the petitioner for service of the revisional application upon the opposite party No. 1 herein, granted an ad interim stay of further proceeding on condition that the petitioner shall pay Rs. 200/- per month to the wife opposite party No. 1, month by month, and in default, the ad interim stay order which was granted for nine weeks from that date would stand vacated. From time to time that order was extended. The wife opposite party No. 1 in order to vacate or vary the interim order filed an application before this Court on 10th March, 1985. The application for vacating the interim order came up for hearing yesterday before this Court and Mr. Pramod Ranjan Ray, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner, argued the matter regarding vacating the interim order application but in doing so he also argued on the point of merit of the revisional application. In such circumstances, this Court by its order dated 15th May, 1995 directed that the revisional application and the application for vacating the interim order be heard today.

(3.) As Mr. Ray yesterday made his submission regarding the main matter and also the vacating matter, Mr. Bimal Ranjan Talukdar, learned Advocate for the petitioner, appearing with Mr. Ray, made his submission today. Both the submissions made by Mr. Ray and Mr. Talukdar are recorded hereunder.