GAUTAM KAYAL Vs. BULBUL KAYAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE application has been filed praying for recalling/modification of the order dated 09/2/2007 passed by this Court ex parte against the petitioner/husband in CRR No. 822 of 2005.

(2.) IT is stated in the said petition that the impugned order, as passed by this Court in CRR No. 822 of 2005 was passed in absence of the petitioner/husband. According to the petitioner, the husband had no opportunity to place his case before the Court when the hearing took place. By the impugned order, this Court confirmed the judgment, as passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 5th Court, Alipore in Criminal Motion no. 72 of 2003. By the said order, in fact, the maintenance order, as passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 3rd Court, was confirmed by the learned additional Sessions Judge. As against this, the revisional application was filed in the High Court and this Court by its judgment was pleased to modify the said order of the Courts below and directed that the maintenance order will take effect from the date of the filing of the application and not from the date when the order was passed, as directed by both the Courts below. According to the petitioner/husband, this Court was not justified in passing such judgment without giving any opportunity to the husband and it was further submitted that the direction that the order of maintenance shall take effect from the date of the application was also wrong in view of the fact that at the relevant time, the maximum amount of maintenance to be paid by a husband to a wife was restricted to Rs. 500/- per month only. Accordingly, this petition has been filed praying for revealing/modification of the judgment, as passed by this Court on 9/2/2007 in CRR No. 822 of 2005.

(3.) THE petition was contested by the opposite party/wife by filing opposition against it. According to the wife, the husband was duly informed about the pendency of the revisional application before this Court and he intentionally did not appear at the time of hearing. It was further contended on behalf of the wife that there is no scope for recalling/modification of the order when the judgment was passed by a criminal Court. According to the wife, the order, so passed by this Court with the direction for giving effect to the maintenance order from the date of application was perfectly justified and as such, there is no scope to interfere with the said order at present.