A Calcutta High Court criminal revision bench condoned a three-day delay in filing the revision and dismissed the petition challenging a Family Court order directing payment of arrears under Section 125 CrPC, finding no illegality in the accounts.
Condonation of delay allowed; Revisional application dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
08.12.2022
Item No.15 Ct.No.34 dc.
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
C.R.R. 453 of 2021
with CRAN 1 of 2021
Sri Subhadip Paul alias Subhadip Pal versus
Smt. Keya Paul nee Ghosh
Re: CRAN 1 of 2021
(an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act)
Petitioner prays for condonation of delay of 3 days in preferring this revisional application.
The reasons so assigned in the application for condonation of delay are found to be just and sufficient. Accordingly, delay is condoned. The application being CRAN 1 of 2021 is, thus, allowed.
Re: CRR 453 of 2021
The subject-matter of this revisional application relates to an order dated 11.11.2020 passed by the learned Registrar, Family Court No.1, Calcutta in connection with Misc. Execution Case No. 91 of 2016 which arose out of Misc. Case No. 47 of 2014 under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code.
I have perused the order passed by the learned court and I find that the Family Court after taking into consideration all the accounts which were placed by both the sides was pleased to hold that “From the documents it is found that petitioner has not received the said disputed
2
amount, so the said claim of Rs.61,644/- of the petitioner as mentioned in her statement dated 20.04.2017 is still lying due.” On such a finding, the learned Family Court directed the present petitioner to pay the same immediately in view of the direction of the Hon’ble High Court, Calcutta in CRR 34 of 2020.
I have considered the reasons, manner and mode by which the learned court arrived at the assessed amount. I do not find any reason to interfere with the same, as there are no illegalities in the comparison of the accounts which has been made by the said court. Thus, no interference is called for.
Accordingly, the revisional application being CRR 453 of 2021 is dismissed.
All parties shall act on the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities.
(Tirthankar Ghosh, J.)
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the delay of three days in filing the revisional application should be condoned.
Whether the Family Court's assessment of the disputed maintenance amount required interference.
Whether the cited order of the Registrar Family Court was illegal or improper.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Sri Subhadip Paul alias Subhadip Pal
Smt. Keya Paul nee Ghosh
Tirthankar Ghosh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
