SHABNAM PARVEEN Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant revision has been preferred by the petitioner/widow daughter-in-law of Opposite Party Nos. 2 and 5 and sister-in-law of Opposite Party Nos. 3 and 4 assailing the order dated January 24, 2017 passed by the learned Additional District and Session Judge, First Court, Sealdah, South 24 Parganas in Criminal Appeal No. 31 of 2016 setting aside the order granting monetary relief to the petitioner under section 20(d) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act.

(2.) The facts leading to the instant revision is that the petitioner/widow daughter-in-law filed an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (hereinafter referred to as `PWDV' Act) against her in-laws namely the Opposite Parties before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Sealdah seeking relief under section 18, 19, 20, 22 and 23 of the Act which registered as Complaint case no.63 of 2015. She also prayed for interim relief and the learned Magistrate, 2nd court, Sealdah by an order dated June 22, 2016 allowed the monetary relief directing Opposite Party No.2/father-in-law to pay Rs. 2,500/- per month to the petitioner/widow daughter-in-law under Section 20(d) of the PWDV Act. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the same Opposite Party No.2/father-in-law preferred appeal being Criminal Appeal No. 31 of 2016 and the learned Additional Session Judge, First Court, Sealdah, South 24 Parganas allowed the appeal and set aside the order directing payment by Opposite Party No.2/father-in-law to this petitioner/widow daughter-in-law by the impugned order. Being aggrieved by the same petitioner has preferred the instant revision.

(3.) It was submitted by the learned advocate for the petitioner that this petitioner after marriage started her conjugal life with her husband in the joint mess of the opposite parties but during her stay there she was subjected to cruelty by the opposite parties and was finally driven away by them from the matrimonial home. It was also submitted by him that there was a joint family business and after death of the husband of the petitioner father-in-law is looking after that business and their family income is more than Rs. 50,000/- per month whereas this petitioner has no independent source of her income and accordingly learned Magistrate taking into account the same directed Opposite Party No.2/father-in-law to pay Rs. 2,500/- per month till the disposal of the proceeding under Section 12 of the protection of PWDV Act but the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge set aside that order by the order. According to him learned Additional District & Sessions Judge was not justified in not taking into account that petitioner has no independent source of her income whereas father-in-law is looking the joint family business and earning more than Rs. 50,000/- per month while rejecting the order passed by the learned Magistrate.