Disposed¶5

Amit Chatterjee v. Aparna Chatterjee

Calcutta HC24 Jul 2025CO/310/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CO 310 of 2025 | High Court at Calcutta, Civil Revisional Jurisdiction (Appellate Side) | Article 227 Constitution of India | expedited disposal of Matrimonial Suit No.06 of 2023 | Misc. Case No.08 of 2023 under Section 24 Hindu Marriage Act (maintenance/alimony claim by wife) | Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court-I, Sealdah | six-month disposal timeline, no unnecessary adjournments | Amit Chatterjee v. Smt. Aparna Chatterjee | Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J. | decided 24.07.2025

What did the court decide?

Request to the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court-I, Sealdah, to take up the hearing of the Miscellaneous Case (Misc. Case No.08 of 2023) on the next date fixed, if otherwise ready, and to dispose of it expeditiously, preferably within six months from the next date fixed, without granting unnecessary adjournments to either party.

Amit Chatterjee Vs Aparna Chatterjee — Matrimonial and Divorce | Calcutta HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶5

Issue for consideration

Whether the Court should direct the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court-I, Sealdah, to dispose of Matrimonial Suit No.06 of 2023 (and the pending Misc. Case No.08 of 2023 under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act) expeditiously.

¶1

Court's answer

CO 310 of 2025 was disposed of by requesting the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court-I, Sealdah, to take up the hearing of the Miscellaneous Case on the next date fixed, if otherwise ready for hearing, and to make an endeavour to dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible, preferably within six months from the next date fixed, without granting any unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties.

¶5

Ratio / Principle

In view of the order sought and proposed to be passed, there was no necessity to pass any direction to serve notice upon the opposite party; instead, the petitioner's advocate on record was obliged to forward a copy of the revisional application along with the order to the opposite party or her advocate before the learned trial Judge.

¶3

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Revisional application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the husband (Amit Chatterjee) seeking a direction upon the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court-I, Sealdah, for expeditious disposal of Matrimonial Suit No.06 of 2023. Counsel submitted that the wife/opposite party (Smt. Aparna Chatterjee) had filed Misc. Case No.08 of 2023 under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act and was delaying the hearing of the suit. Finding from the appended order sheet that the Misc. case stood fixed for hearing, the Court saw no need to direct service of notice on the opposite party and disposed of CO 310 of 2025 by requesting the trial Judge to take up the hearing of the Miscellaneous Case on the next date fixed, if otherwise ready, and to endeavour to dispose of it expeditiously, preferably within six months from the next date fixed, without granting unnecessary adjournments to either party. (Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.; 24.07.2025)

¶1

ML-473 24.07.2025 Ct. No.06 pg.

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE

¶3

CO 310 of 2025

¶4

Amit Chatterjee Vs.

¶5

Smt. Aparna Chatterjee

¶6

Mr. Sudipta Kumar Bose

¶7

Mr. Anirban Basak

¶8

… For the petitioner

¶9

This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the husband praying for a direction upon the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court-I, Sealdah, to dispose of the Matrimonial Suit No.06 of 2023, expeditiously.

¶10

Mr. Bose, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the wife/opposite party filed Misc. Case No.08 of 2023 under the provision of Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act and she is delaying the hearing of the said Matrimonial Suit.

¶11

In view of the order sought and proposed to be passed, there is no necessity to pass any direction to serve notice upon the opposite party. However, learned advocate on record for the petitioner shall be obliged to forward a copy of this revisional application along with this order upon the opposite party or upon the learned advocate representing the opposite party before the learned trial Judge.

¶12

¶13

From the order sheet appended to this revisional application, this Court finds that the Misc. case was fixed for hearing.

¶14

In the light of the submission made by the learned advocate for the petitioner, CO 310 of 2025 is disposed of by requesting the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court-I, Sealdah, to take up the hearing of the Miscellaneous Case on the next date fixed, if the same is otherwise ready for hearing, and to make an endeavour to dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible, but preferably within a period of six months from the next date fixed without granting any unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties.

¶15

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

¶16

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties, upon compliance of necessary formalities.

¶17

(Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.)

Amit Chatterjee v. Aparna Chatterjee

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amit Chatterjee v. Aparna Chatterjee

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ajit Kumar Mondal Vs Shovarani Sarkar and Ors.

Mayapur Saraswat Gouriya Shraman Ashram Rep by Maharaj Tibikram @ Bhkatananda Tibikram Maharaj Vs Mayapur Saraswat Gouriya Shraman Ashram Repd by Mahadeb Kumar Biswas and Ors.

Maharaj Tibikram @ Bhaktananda Tibikram Maharaj Vs Mayapur Sri Sri Bhaktananda Tibikram Welfare Society and Ors.

Poonam Rawat Vs Dinmay Rawat

Kamal Paul Vs Joydeb Sarkar and Ors.

Kashi Nath Singh Vs Aniruddha Prasad Singh and Ors.