Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Aman Gupta vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 12 May, 2016
Form No. J (1)
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
Appellate Side
Present :
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SANKAR ACHARYYA
CRR 3901 of 2014
In the matter of :
Aman Gupta
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
CRR 3471 of 2014
In the matter of :
Smt. Reema Gupta
Vs.
Aman Gupta & Ors.
For the petitioner : Md. Sabir Ahmed, advocate.
Mr. Abdur Rakib, advocate.
In CRR 3901 of 2014
For the opposite : Mr. Debasish Banerjee, advocate
Party no. 2 In CRR 3901 of 2014
For the petitioner : Mr. Debasish Banerjee, advocate.
In CRR 3471 of 2014
For the opposite : Md. Sabir Ahmed, advocate.
Parties Mr. Abdur Rakib, advocate.
In CRR 3471 of 2014
Heard on : 16.12.2015, 21.12.2015, 25.01.2016,
10.02.2016, 24.02.2016, 26.02.2016,
15.03.2016, 18.03.2016, 21.03.2016,
29.03.2016.
Judgment on : 12.05.2016
SANKAR ACHARYYA, J.
Both these applications under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (in short Cr.P.C.) have been filed challenging a composite judgment dated 22nd September, 2014 (hereinafter called as impugned judgment) delivered by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track, 2nd Court, Howrah in three appeals being Criminal Appeal nos. 07 of 2013, 08 of 2013 and 29 of 2013 under Section 29 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (in short P.W.D.V. Act). Said Criminal Appeals no. 07 of 2013 and 08 of 2013 were filed by Reema Gupta and Criminal Appeal no. 29 of 2013 was filed by Aman Gupta and two others. All the said three appeals were preferred against an interim order dated 09.01.2013 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 5th Court, Howrah in Misc. Case No. 331 of 2012 disposing of two petitions filed by Reema Gupta one for interim relief under Sections 20/23 of the P.W.D.V. Act and another for interim relief under Sections 19/23 of the P.W.D.V. Act. As aggrieved person Reema Gupta filed Misc. Case No. 331 of 2012 against her husband Aman Gupta and others seeking reliefs under the provisions of the P.W.D.V. Act. This revisional application being no. CRR 3471 of 2014 has been filed by said Reema Gupta and the another revisional application being no. CRR 3901 of 2014 has been filed by said Aman Gupta.
In the order dated 09.01.2013 learned Magistrate rejected petition under Sections 19/23 of the P.W.D.V. Act for residence order at interim stage for deciding the question of residence order after perusal of evidence. Learned Magistrate passed that order granting interim monthly maintenance to the tune of Rs.3000/- in favour of petitioner Reema Gupta against her husband Aman Gupta under Sections 20/23, P.W.D.V. Act payable from the date of order. In criminal Appeal No. 07 of 2013 appellant Reema Gupta challenged the amount of maintenance as insufficient and allowing that appeal learned Additional Sessions Judge enhanced the amount from Rs.3000/- to Rs.7000/- per month and accordingly modified the order of learned Magistrate. In Criminal Appeal No. 08 of 2013 appellant Reema Gupta challenged the refusal of her prayer of interim residence order and said appeal was dismissed in the impugned judgment. In Criminal Appeal No. 29 of 2013 appellant Aman Gupta and two others challenged the maintainability of the case under the P.W.D.V. Act brought by Reema Gupta and said appeal was also dismissed in the impugned judgment.
Admitted facts are that on 24.02.2012 Hindu Marriage between Reema Gupta and Aman Gupta was solemnised at Rosy Palace, 5B, Outram Street, P.S. Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata and after marriage Aman Gupta brought Reema Gupta to his residence at 33/2, M.C. Ghosh Lane, Howrah. Marriage reception of their wedding was performed on 27.02.2012 at 27, Ballygunge Park, Kolkata 700019. On 28.02.2012 Reema Gupta went to her father's house at Dwarika Complex, Block J- 4 at 20, Carrie Road, P.S. Shibpur, Howrah - 4 and since then she has been residing there.
At the time of hearing learned counsel for the petitioner Aman Gupta in CRR 3901 of 2014 submitted that no domestic relationship between Aman Gupta and Reema Gupta could be established as the marriage between them was not completed for want of consummation of marriage. Learned counsel for the petitioner Reema Gupta in CRR 3471 of 2014 submitted that domestic relationship was established as after completion of the Hindu marriage on 24.02.2012 they started living together in the shared household and lived there till 28.02.2012 . I am satisfied to accept the prima facie case of domestic relationship between Aman Gupta and Reema Gupta as made out before the learned Magistrate in Misc. Case No. 331 of 2012 by petitioner Reema Gupta. At this stage of consideration about legality, propriety and correctness of the interim order I am not satisfied to hold that Misc. Case No. 331 of 2012 is not maintainable. However, question of maintainability of that case is not finally decided by this Court and said question may be raised in the first court again for final decision after recording evidence of both the parties, if any.
Learned counsel for the petitioner Reema Gupta in CRR 3471 of 2014 submitted that although in impugned judgment learned Judge in the appellate Court enhanced the amount of interim maintenance from Rs.3000/- to Rs.7000/- per month yet it is not in conformity with the income of Aman Gupta. He further submitted that said enhancement ought to have been made taking into consideration of the monthly income of Aman Gupta which was not done in the impugned judgment. He advanced his arguments that refusal of the prayer of Reema Gupta for interim residence order has caused miscarriage of justice. Learned advocate on behalf of Aman Gupta urged that since the case as a whole is not maintainable granting of any amount as interim maintenance is not legal. Having gone through the materials on records prima facie it appears that Reema Gupta as petitioner in Misc. Case No. 331 of 2014 made her substantive prayer for residence order to provide her accommodation at 3rd Floor of the building at 82, Chintamoni Dey Road, Howrah or to pay Rs.8000/- as her rent for residence. It is not her case that at any point of time she lived singly or together with her husband and inmates at 3rd Floor of 82, Chintamoni Dey Road, Howrah as shared household. In the order dated 09.01.2013 in Misc. Case No. 331 of 2012 learned Magistrate rejected the prayer for interim residence order. In the impugned judgment learned Additional Sessions Judge did not differ with such finding of learned Magistrate. I am not satisfied that at the time of passing the order dated 09.01.2013 sufficient materials were placed before the learned Magistrate for passing such interim residence order in favour of Reema Gupta in terms of her prayer. The order for enhancement of interim maintenance of Reema Gupta from Rs.3000/- to Rs.7000/- per month does not appear to me unreasonable or inadequate on the basis of prima facie materials on record.
Therefore, I find no merit in both the revisional applications being nos. CRR 3471 of 2014 and CRR 3901 of 2014.
Consequently, both CRR 3471 of 2014 and CRR 3901 of 2014 are dismissed on contest without any order as to costs.
Urgent Photostat certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be given expeditiously to the parties or their advocates on record observing usual formalities.
(SANKAR ACHARYYA, J.,)