KAUSTAV SINHA Vs. SASWATI SINHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Section 401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed by the petitioner challenging the impugned judgment and order dated 10.12.2018, passed by the Learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Second Court, Sealdah, South 24 Parganas. By the impugned order, the Learned Judge allowed the Criminal Appeal no.17 of 2017 preferred by the opposite party and set aside the order dated 02.02.2017, passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Court, Sealdah, South 24 Parganas, directing the present petitioner to pay Rs.4,500/- per month towards maintenance of the opposite party since the date of the application under Section 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. which are necessary for disposal of this revisional application may be summarized as under:-

(2.) Admittedly the opposite party is the legally married wife of the present petitioner. Their marriage was solemnized on 12.08.2013 in accordance with Hindu Rites and Ceremonies. The marriage of the petitioner and opposite party was the outcome of their love affairs. After marriage, the opposite party/wife started to reside at her matrimonial home with the petitioner and her in-laws. The marriage of the petitioner and opposite party was not happy one. On 30.07.2014, the opposite party filed an application under Section 23 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act against the petitioner making allegations that she was subjected to cruelty and torture by her husband and in-laws for demand of dowry. Opposite party also initiated criminal proceeding against her husband and in-laws for commission of alleged offences under Section 498A/406/411 of the Indian Penal Code. From the order passed by the Learned Magistrate, it transpires that the prayer for maintenance of the wife was refused on the ground that the petitioner/present opposite party is a working lady and she is not unemployed. Learned Magistrate also observed that present opposite party did not state anything regarding her status, position and the salary. Accordingly, the Learned Magistrate refused the prayer for interim maintenance on the ground that she is not at all in urgent need of maintenance. Present opposite party challenged the order of rejection of her maintenance by preferring an appeal under Section 29 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. That appeal was registered as Criminal appeal no.17 of 2017. On 10th December, 2018 the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Second Court, Sealdah, has allowed the said criminal appeal on contest and set aside the order passed by the Learned Magistrate. The present petitioner has been the directed to pay Rs.4,500/- per month towards maintenance of the present opposite party wife from the date of the application under Section 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act.

(3.) The order of maintenance granted to the present opposite party by the Learned Appellate Court is under challenge. During the course of hearing the Learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner has contended that the Learned Appellant Court has committed an error in granting interim maintenance in favour of the wife. She has assailed the impugned order on the ground that the Learned Judge at the time of passing the impugned order has overlooked to consider the conduct of the opposite party/wife and granted the interim maintenance to her from the date of filing of the application for maintenance. It is the specific contention of the petitioner, the delay in disposal of the application was caused by the wife herself. Learned Advocate for the petitioner has invited the attention of the Court to the copies of orders of the Learned Magistrate passed in connection with case no.C-401/14 and has vigorously argued that the present opposite party/wife herself was responsible for delay in disposal of the application for interim maintenance. According to her contention Learned Appellate Court has committed an error in awarding interim maintenance from the date of the filing of the application for maintenance. On the other hand, Learned Advocate appearing for the present opposite party/wife has contended that hearing was not taken place due to the adjournments sought for by the present petitioner/husband and Learned Judge has rightly passed the impugned order directing the husband to pay interim maintenance from the date of filing of the application for maintenance. From the submission and counter submission made by the Learned Counsel for the parties, it appears that main grievance of the petitioner/husband regarding the direction of the Appellate Court to pay interim maintenance from the date of filing of the application. On perusal of the materials placed on record, it appears that the present opposite party took several adjournments and also remained absent without taking any step. The conduct of the opposite party was not at all satisfactory. The opposite party/wife asked for interim maintenance but she herself was not at all diligent and she herself remained absent before the Learned Magistrate when the matter was called on for hearing. She herself was responsible for delay in disposal of her application for interim maintenance. I find force in the submission made by the Learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner/husband. The order of maintenance granted to the wife is interim in nature.