Allowed

Shyamali Mondal @ Raptan v. Subhas Mondal & Anr.

Calcutta HC3 Feb 2022CRR/1265/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a revision under Sections 401 and 482 CrPC, setting aside the Magistrate's order refusing maintenance. It held the Magistrate's parameters unacceptable given evidence of torture and dowry demands. The matter was remanded for proper consideration under Section 125 CrPC.

What did the court decide?

Judgment and order dated 25.01.2018 setting aside; Notice issued to both parties; Evidence to be re-appreciated.

Shyamali Mondal @ Raptan Vs Subhas Mondal & Anr. — Maintenance and Alimony | Calcutta HC (2022)

¶1

D/L 22 C.R.R. No.1265 of 2018 February 3, (Via Video Conference) 2022 Bpg. In Re: An application under Section 401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973;

¶2

Shyamali Mondal (Raptan) Versus Subhas Mondal & Anr.

¶3

Mr. Apurba Kumar Datta. …for the petitioner.

¶4

Affidavit-of-service filed by the petitioner be kept with the

¶5

record.

¶6

I have perused the judgment and order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate (1^st Class), 1^st Additional Court, Basirhat. The parameters considered by the learned Magistrate are not acceptable to this Court for refusal of maintenance. This Court could have detailed on the reasons, which are over there in the judgment and order. However, as an abundant precaution this Court restricts itself from commenting on the parameters or yardstick so taken into account for refusing maintenance. The factum of torture and demand of dowry and the reasons for not staying with the husband are palpable on the face of the record. Yet, the learned Magistrate has arrived at a conclusion that the lady on her will was not residing with the husband. The reasons so assigned should have been on the basis of foundation of the objects and purpose for which Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been incorporated.

¶7

¶8

Accordingly, the judgment and order dated 25.01.2018 passed by the learned Magistrate (1^st Class), 1^st Additional Court, Basirhat in connection with Misc. Case No.310 of 2006 (TR No.652 of 2006) is set aside.

¶9

Learned Magistrate will issue notice to both the parties and fix date of hearing and re-appreciate the evidence for arriving at his independent conclusion.

¶10

Accordingly, CRR 1265 of 2018 is allowed.

¶11

Connected application, if any, is consequently disposed

¶12

of.

¶13

The petitioner will be at liberty to draw the attention of the jurisdictional court by producing the server copy of this order for implementing the same in accordance with law.

¶14

All parties shall act on the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court.

¶15

(Tirthankar Ghosh, J.)

Shyamali Mondal @ Raptan v. Subhas Mondal & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shyamali Mondal @ Raptan v. Subhas Mondal & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tanmoy Biswas Vs State of West Bengal

Toyeb Molla Vs State of West Bengal

Mamata Senapati Vs State of West Bengal and Anr.

Nitu Jaiswal Nee Gupta Vs Manish Jaiswal & Anr.

Abdul Rahaman Vs State of West Bengal

Sukumar Chakraborty Vs State of West Bengal & Anr.