Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
1471/2009 on 8 April, 2014
Author: R. K. Bag
Bench: R. K. Bag
1 4.2014.
p.b.
C.R.R. No.1471 of 2009 Mr. Kallol Kr. Basu, Mr. Debapriya Samanta, Mr. Souvik Chatterjee.
.....For the petitioner.
This criminal revision is preferred by the petitioner wife challenging the order dated 9th February, 2009 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Additional Court, Basirhat, North 24 Parganas, in Case No.M-310/2006, by which learned Magistrate rejected the claim of maintenance of the petitioner wife.
It appears from the materials on record that the petitioner is the legally married wife of the opposite party no.1. It also appears from record that the petitioner is compelled to live in the house of one Gopal Gayen as she was subjected to cruelty by the opposite party wife.
Mr. Basu, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a document was prepared under threat and coersion indicating the fact that the petitioner wife voluntarily left the matrimonial home and started living in the house of one Gopal Gain, who happens to be the cousin brother of the petitioner wife. This document was prepared in the police station in presence of the witnesses including two witnesses on behalf of the petitioner. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner wife may be given an opportunity to examine those witnesses before the trial court to establish that the document is vitiated under threat and coersion and the said document cannot be relied upon to refuse maintenance to the petitioner wife. Mr. Basu further submits that one letter was given by the 2 petitioner wife before the Superintendent of Police, South 24 Parganas, in protest against the actions of the police officers in whose presence the document was prepared in the police station, but the said application has not been admitted into evidence and as such, opportunity may be given to the petitioner wife to admit that document into evidence.
None appears on behalf of the opposite party husband, though Mr. M. L. Banerjee, learned counsel appeared on behalf of the opposite party husband on 2nd May, 2011.
In view of above submissions made on behalf of the petitioner wife and on consideration of the impugned judgment challenged in this criminal revision, I am of the opinion that an opportunity may be given to the petitioner wife to adduce further evidence before the trial court in the light of observations made by me for ends of justice. Accordingly, the impugned judgment and order dated 9th February, 2009 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Additional Court, Basirhat, North 24 Parganas, in Case No.M-310/2006, is set aside. The case is remanded to the learned court below with direction to learned Magistrate to give opportunity to both parties to adduce evidence in the light of observations made in the body of the judgment and to give opportunity to both parties to make their submissions and to dispose of the matter as early as possible preferably within a period of six months from the date of communication of the order.
The criminal revision is disposed of.
Let a copy of the order be sent down to the learned court below for favour of information and necessary action.
3
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, shall be given to the parties as expeditiously as possible.
(R. K. Bag, J.)