ARATI SAMATA Vs. BISWAJIT SAMANTA & ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant revisional application has been preferred by the petitioner/husband assailing the order dated April 11, 2017 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Howrah in Criminal Revision No. 79 of 2016 affirming the order of interim maintenance granted by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 6th Court, Howrah against this petitioner in Misc. Case 463 of 2015.

(2.) The facts leading to the instant revision is that O.P. no.1/wife filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. claiming maintenance allowance from this petitioner which was registered as M. Case No.463 of 2015 and also filed an application for interim maintenance allowance. The said application for interim maintenance allowance was allowed on contest by the learned Judicial Magistrate 6th Court, Howrah directing this petitioner to pay interim maintenance allowance @ Rs. 1500/- per month to O.P. no1/wife. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the same this petitioner preferred revision being Criminal Revision No. 79 of 2016 and by the impugned judgment learned Sessions Judge dismissed the same and affirmed the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the same petitioner/husband has come up with the instant revisional application.

(3.) It was submitted by the learned advocate for the petitioner that this O.P. No.1 is not entitled to get any maintenance allowance as she left the matrimonial home on her own. He also submitted that petitioner then filed a suit for restitution of conjugal right being matrimonial suit No. 80 of 2014 where this O.P. no.1 appeared and contested the same by filing written statement and thereafter learned additional District and Sessions Judge, 3rd Court, Barrackpore, North 24 Pargnas was pleased to decree the suit directing this O.P. no.1 to come back to the matrimonial home to restore the conjugal life with this petitioner but O.P. No.1 suppressing the above fact filed the application for maintenance and got the order of interim maintenance. He further submitted that in view of the decree in the matrimonial suit and as the petitioner left the matrimonial home of her own, she is not entitled to get any maintenance allowance.