Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
(Hopna Majhi vs State & Anr.) on 2 March, 2017
1 5 02.03.2017 an Court No. 34 CRR 2116 of 2011 (Hopna Majhi vs. State & anr.) None appears on behalf of the petitioner even after repeated calls. No notice has been sent to the petitioner also. The instant revisional application is pending for the last five and half years.
The petitioner/husband has come before this court only to avoid payment of Rs. 2500/- as maintenance and that too was passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Durgapur dealing with the revisional application. Initially, the learned Magistrate had directed the present petitioner to pay Rs. 3000/- as maintenance.
Challenging the said amount, the petitioner had moved before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Durgapur. Being unsuccessful again, he has come before this court. However, he is successful to the extent that he has kept the matter pending for more than five years.
On perusal of the materials and the impugned order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, I do not find any illegality in it.
Accordingly, the order passed by the learned court below is affirmed and the instant revisional application stands dismissed.
Let a copy of this order be forwarded to the learned trial court for information and necessary action.
Urgent certified photostat copy of this order, if applied for, shall be given to the parties as expeditiously as possible on compliance of all necessary formalities.
(Siddhartha Chattopadhyay, J.) 2