The High Court dismissed a criminal revision against an order affirming the cancellation of a maintenance decree. It held that relief remains available under an existing, unaffected maintenance order in a separate judicial proceeding.
The revisional application CRR 2389 of 2019 was dismissed; connected applications disposed of and interim order vacated.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
(Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction)
Appellate Side
Present:
The Hon’ble Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul)
CRR 2389 of 2019
Fatema Bibi
Vs. Sk Noor Hossain.
For the Petitioner : Mr. Aniket Mitra. For the Opposite Party No.1 : Mr. Shekhar Barman. Mr. Rohit Prasad. Heard on : 01.05.2023 Judgment on : 06.06.2023
Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.:
2
3
Section 126(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure in Misc. Case No.455 of 2011. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barasat was pleased to dismiss the application ex parte primarily on the ground that the notice of “Talak” was properly served upon the petitioner and also that there has been suppression of material fact that after the cancellation of the order of maintenance, the petitioner filed another maintenance case being Misc. Case No.271 of 2006 and obtained an order of maintenance of Rs.800/- per month from the opposite party/husband.
4
application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C being Misc. 271 of 2006 without mentioning about the earlier application filed by her.
that the learned Judge erred in law in not considering the fact that the order of maintenance awarded in favour of the petitioner was cancelled on the ground of non-receipt of notice by the petitioner which is not correct since the husband could not produce any document to substantiate that the summons sent to the petitioner by registered post reached her and that the same was duly delivered.
has submitted that the order under revision is in accordance with law and needs no interference.
5
Misc. Case No.271 of 2006, orders in which are still in force.
6
(Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.)
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the revisional court should interfere with the dismissal of an application challenging the cancellation of a maintenance order passed by the Magistrate.
Whether the relief under maintenance legislation is still available to the petitioner given the existence of another ongoing maintenance case.
Whether the impugned order of the Sessions Court affirming the cancellation of the first maintenance order calls for interference.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Fatema Bibi
Sk Noor Hossain
Shampa Dutt
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
