Disposed¶15

Debjani Lahiri v. Sohaam Lahiri

Calcutta HC2 May 2025CO/418/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Calcutta High Court, CO No.418 of 2025, decided 02-05-2025 by Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J; Article 227 revisional application by wife Debjani Lahiri against opposite party Sohaam Lahiri; challenge to order dated 16.01.2025 of Additional District Judge, 11th Court, Alipore in Matrimonial Suit No.48 of 2017 rejecting prayer for stay of matrimonial suit; alimony pendente lite miscellaneous case allowed in part on 25.04.2025 with litigation costs and refusal of interim maintenance; adjournment prayer rejected, alleged denial of reasonable opportunity held non-examinable in revision; no interference; disposed of, no order as to costs.

What did the court decide?

None; interference with the impugned order was declined, with the petitioner left open to work out her remedies in accordance with law. ¶15

Debjani Lahiri Vs Sohaam Lahiri — Writ and Judicial Review | Calcutta HC (2025)

¶1

02-05-2025 Item no.39 Subrata Bhattacharyya AR(C)

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

¶3

Civil Revisional Jurisdiction

¶4

CO No.418 of 2025 Smt. Debjani Lahiri

¶5

-vs-

¶6

Sri Sohaam Lahiri

¶7

Ms. Krishnakali Swar Ms. Pritha Maity …for the petitioner Mr. Sanjoy Mukherjee Mr. Saurav Chaudhuri …for the opposite party

¶8

This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the wife and is directed against an order dated January 16, 2025 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 11^th Court at Alipore in Matrimonial Suit No.48 of 2017.

¶9

By the order impugned, the prayer for stay of the matrimonial suit was rejected. When the matter came up for hearing on April 22, 2025, it was submitted by learned advocate for the petitioner that the learned trial judge was proceeding with the hearing of the matrimonial suit, in spite of the fact that the miscellaneous case for alimony pendente lite was not disposed of. In view thereof, the matter was directed to appear in the list on April 28, 2025.

¶10

Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, Mr Mukherjee, learned advocate for the opposite party submits that on April 25, 2025, the miscellaneous case was allowed in part thereby directing the opposite party herein to pay litigation costs to the wife and refusing the prayer for interim maintenance.

¶11

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner did not get reasonable opportunity to present her case before the learned trial judge as her prayer for adjournment was rejected.

¶13

However, this court cannot go into such issues in this revisional application. The petitioner is left open to work out her remedies in accordance with law.

¶14

Since in the meantime, the miscellaneous case for alimony has been disposed of, this court is not inclined to interfere with such order at this stage.

¶15

With the above observations, CO No.418 of 2025 stands disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶16

All parties are to act on the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this court.

¶17

Certified copy of this order, if applied for, shall be made available to the parties.

¶18

[ Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J]

¶19

Debjani Lahiri v. Sohaam Lahiri

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Debjani Lahiri v. Sohaam Lahiri

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

Madhu Sutodia Vs Harpreet Raur Kohili

Mangobinda Das and Anr. Vs Sudhangsu Sekhar Das and Ors.

Bhabani Mallick Vs Swapan Kr Mallick

Arun Goel and Anr. Vs Vinay Jindal

Farid Ahmed Laskar Deceased Repd by Samim Aktar Laskar and Ors. Vs Munshidanga Dakshinpara Zumma Maszid

Anjali Mondal Vs Bablu Mondal and Anr.