Dismissed

Syed Siraj Ali v. Momtaz Chowdhury(Begam) and Anr.

Calcutta HC19 Dec 2022CRR/430/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a revisional application under Article 227 challenging a maintenance award under Section 125 CrPC. The court held there was no illegality in the lower court dismissing a petition filed 11 years post-judgment and found the awarded minimum amount did not warrant interference.

What did the court decide?

Revisional application CRR 430 of 2021 dismissed; pending application disposed of.

Syed Siraj Ali Vs Momtaz Chowdhury(Begam) and Anr. — Maintenance and Alimony | Calcutta HC (2022)

¶1

D/L10 19.12.2022

¶2

C.R.R.430 of 2021

¶3

Bpg. In Re: An application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India;

¶4

Syed Siraj Ali Versus Momtaz Chowdhury (Begam) and another

¶5

Ms. Manisha Sharma.

¶6

…for the State.

¶7

None appears on behalf of the petitioner.

¶8

The revisional application appeared on 19^th February, 2021 when there was a direction by a co-ordinate Bench to serve a copy of the revisional application upon the opposite party no.1 by speed post with acknowledgement due and file an affidavit of service.

¶9

The subject matter of the revisional application relates to a judgment under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure wherein the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bolpur in Misc. Case No.108 of 2006 was pleased to award maintenance of Rs.800/- per month to the wife and Rs.400/- per month to the minor child, aggregating to a sum of Rs.1200/- per month.

¶10

Having regard to the quantum which was awarded by the learned ACJM, Bolpur, I am of the opinion that the amount is very minimum for a court to interfere. Further, the said judgment was passed in the year 2008 and the present petitioner filed an application dated 21.10.2019 before the learned ACJM, Bolpur. The learned ACJM, Bolpur after consideration of the submissions

¶11

¶12

was pleased to observe that in respect of a case which was disposed of in the year 2008, an application has been filed in the month of October, 2019, almost after 11 years.

¶13

Having regard to the emphasis laid by the learned ACJM, Bolpur in respect of 11 years after which such application was preferred by the present petitioner, dismissing the said application dated 21^st October, 2019, I find that there is no illegality in the said order.

¶14

Accordingly, the revisional application being CRR 430 of 2021 is dismissed.

¶15

Pending application, if any, is consequently disposed of.

¶16

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

¶17

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance of all requisite formalities.

¶18

(Tirthankar Ghosh, J.)

Syed Siraj Ali v. Momtaz Chowdhury(Begam) and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Syed Siraj Ali v. Momtaz Chowdhury(Begam) and 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

Satya Ranjan Maity Vs State of West Bengal and Another

Sukumar Mondal Vs State of West Bengal and Anr.

Swapan Kumar Das and Ors. Vs State of West Bengal and Anr.

Mithu Singha and Ors. Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Soumen Dutta Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Nasira Gazi Vs State of West Bengal