Disposed¶10

Rupen Bagdi v. Mahua Bagdi and Others

Calcutta HC8 Sept 2025CRR/2173/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Conditional stay and adjournment payments (percentage of outstanding arrears) in a maintenance appeal arising from a Domestic Violence Act proceeding; validity of court below's discretion to impose cost/payment conditions for stay upheld; three-month disposal timeline fixed for Criminal Appeal No. 12 of 2023; interim payments declared subject to final adjudication; revision/revisional application CRR 2173 of 2025 disposed of by single Judge.

What did the court decide?

Application CRR 2173 of 2025 disposed of with a direction to the court below to dispose of Criminal Appeal No. 12 of 2023 within three months without unnecessary adjournments; payments made as conditions for stay/adjournment declared subject to final adjudication in the appeal. ¶10

Rupen Bagdi Vs Mahua Bagdi and Others — Domestic Violence | Calcutta HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶10

Issue for consideration

Whether the court below's direction, by order dated 21.03.2025 in Criminal Appeal No. 12 of 2023, to pay 25% of the remaining 50% of the outstanding amount as a condition for granting adjournment (despite the earlier stay till disposal of the appeal) is arbitrary and renders the appeal infructuous.

¶8

Court's answer

The grounds for adjournment sought by the appellant/husband's counsel, who himself prepared the grounds of appeal, are not at all convincing.

¶9

Ratio / Principle

No substance is found in admitting the present application; the court below, in its wisdom and discretion, validly imposed the cost as a condition for granting stay.

¶10

Key takeaways

The court below is directed to dispose of Criminal Appeal No. 12 of 2023 preferably within three months from communication of this order, without granting unnecessary adjournments to either party.ratio¶10
Whatever payments the petitioner/husband makes as a condition for granting stay or adjournment, in terms of the court below's orders, shall be subject to final determination/adjudication in the appeal.ratio¶13

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

CRR 2173 of 2025 (order dated 08.09.2025, Dr. Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J.): The petitioner-husband challenged the order dated 21.03.2025 of the court below in Criminal Appeal No. 12 of 2023, whereby his prayer for adjournment was allowed on condition of payment of 25% of the remaining 50% of the outstanding maintenance dues — arising from a Domestic Violence Act proceeding in which the trial court had directed payment of Rs. 6,000/- per month to the wife and Rs. 2,000/- per month to the minor child (order dated 30.03.2023, earlier stayed till disposal of the appeal, with Rs. 1,65,877/- already paid as 50% of the outstanding). Finding the grounds for adjournment unconvincing and holding that the court below acted within its wisdom and discretion in imposing the payment as a condition for stay, the Court disposed of the application, directed disposal of the appeal preferably within three months without unnecessary adjournments to either party, and clarified that all payments made as conditions for stay or adjournment stand subject to final determination/adjudication in the appeal.

¶1

37 08.09.2025 g.b. Court No.29

¶2

CRR 2173 of 2025

¶3

Sri Rupen Bagdi Vs. Mahua Bagdi & Ors.

¶4

Ms. Sima Ghosh Ms. Ankhi Kayal Ms. Manoshi Mondal …….For the Petitioner

¶5

The petitioner herein has challenged the order dated 21^st March, 2025 in criminal appeal no. 12 of 2023. The petitioner’s contention is that the marriage between the petitioner and the opposite parry was solemnized on 10^th January, 2017 and thereafter the opposite party/wife instituted a proceeding under the Domestic Violence Act wherein the trial court directed the petitioner herein to make payment a sum of Rs. 6,000/- per month to the petitioner and Rs.2,000/- to her minor child towards maintenance within 10^th day of each succeeding calendar month.

¶6

Being aggrieved by that order the petitioner/husband preferred the aforesaid criminal appeal being no. 12 of 2023 before the court below and also prayed for granting stay of the impugned order dated 30^th March, 2023 and the court below by an order was pleased to allow the prayer made by the appellant on condition that the appellant/petitioner shall pay 50% of the outstanding amount. Accordingly, the petitioner paid Rs.1,65,877/- and by a subsequent order dated 21^st November, 2024 the order dated 30^th March, 2023 was stayed till disposal of the said appeal.

¶7

¶8

However on subsequent date that is 21^st March, 2025 when the matter was fixed for hearing the petitioner herein filed a petition praying for time for hearing of the appeal and learned court below after considering the submission of learned advocate for both the sides allowed the prayer for adjournment made by the appellant on condition of payment of 25% of rest 50% of the outstanding amount. Being aggrieved by the said order the petitioner herein submits that the court below in earlier order granted stay till disposal of the instant appeal but thereafter he again directed to pay 25% of the rest 50% of the outstanding amount as a condition for granting adjournment, which is arbitrary and such direction makes the appeal infructuous.

¶9

I have gone through the grounds for adjournment which discloses that as learned counsel appearing for the husband/Appellant could not prepare himself after going through the documents, so husband’s counsel sought for accommodation.

¶10

The grounds for adjournment as sought for by Appellant/husband’s counsel, who prepared the grounds of appeal, appears to be not at all convincing and as such I do not find any substance in admitting the present application as also the court below in its wisdom and in its discretion has imposed the cost as a condition for granting stay. Therefore, the present application being 2173 of 2025 is hereby disposed of with a direction upon the court below to dispose of the criminal appeal being no. 12 of 2023 preferably within a period of three months from the date of communication of this order without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the

¶11

¶12

parties.

¶13

However it is made clear, whatever payment that would be made by the present petitioner/husband as a condition for granting stay or for granting adjournment in terms of the order of the court below, shall be subject to final determination/adjudication of the Appel.

¶14

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties urgently after completion of all necessary formalities.

¶15

(Dr. Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J.)

Rupen Bagdi v. Mahua Bagdi and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rupen Bagdi v. Mahua Bagdi and Others

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

Ekub Sekh Vs Union of India

Rohit @ Rohitosh Saha Vs State of West Bengal

Jagjiwan Sing Munda Vs State of West Bengal

Gopal Chakraborty @ Gopal Chanra Chakraborty & Anr. Vs State of West Bengal & Anr.

Mithu Halder Vs State of West Bengal and Anr.

Arup Biswas Vs State of West Bengal and Anr.