HAIMANTI MAL Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Section 401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 filed by the wife/petitioner challenging the judgment and order dated 22.09.2016, passed by the Learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court at Suri, Birbhum in Criminal Appeal No.31 of 2015. By the impugned order Learned Judge modified the judgment and order dated 19.05.2015, passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Court, Suri, Birbhum in Misc. Case No.1 of 2011 under Sections 18,19,20,22 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. Facts which are necessary for disposal of the present application may be summarized as under: Petitioner filed an application under Sections 18,19,20 and 22 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 before the Court of the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Birbhum, Suri, against the opposite party no.2 and that application was registered as Misc. Case No.01 of 2011. Opposite Party contested that application. On 19.05.2015, Learned Magistrate allowed the said application on contest in part directing the opposite party no.2 to pay Rs.4,000/- per month to the two minor children each as monetary relief and rejected the prayer of monetary relief of the wife. Opposite party no.2 was directed to pay Rs.4,000/- per month to the petitioner as a rent for accommodation of the petitioner and her children. Opposite party was directed to return all stridhan articles and to pay Rs.3,00,000/- to the petitioner as compensation. Opposite party no.2 preferred an appeal challenging the order passed by the Learned Magistrate. That appeal was allowed in part by the Learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Suri, Birbhum, on 22.09.2016 and the order passed by the Learned Magistrate was modified. The order of payment of compensation of Rs.3 Lakhs to the wife by the opposite party no.2 was set aside by the Learned Judge in Criminal Appeal no. 31 of 2015.

(2.) The order of setting aside the award of compensation of Rs.3 Lakhs to the petitioner in appeal is under challenge. Impugned order has been assailed by the Learned Advocate for the petitioner on the ground that the Learned Appellate Court has committed an error in setting aside the award of compensation granted by the Learned Magistrate to the petitioner. Learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court to the impugned judgment and submitted that there are contradictions in the observations made in the judgment and conclusion arrived at by the Learned Judge regarding refusal of compensation. She has further contended that the Learned Magistrate rightly awarded compensation of three lakhs to the petitioner but the Learned Judge who heard the appeal came to an erroneous conclusion that the petitioner was not entitled to get compensation.

(3.) On the other hand, the Learned Counsel appearing for the opposite party has submitted that the petitioner did not pray for compensation before the Learned Magistrate and grant of compensation to the petitioner by the Learned Magistrate was not justified. In support of his contention, he has drawn the attention of Court to Section 22 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. Section 22 of the said Act runs as under:-