Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Jhumpa Santra vs State Of West Bengal & Ors on 6 December, 2013
Author: Kanchan Chakraborty
Bench: Kanchan Chakraborty
100 06.12.13 CRAN 2179 of 2012
in
C. R. R. 1186 of 2012
Jhumpa Santra
-Vs.-
State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. A. K. Gayen...For the petitioner.
The application being CRAN 2179 of 2012 is
treated as on day's list.
This application is pertaining to a
proceeding under Section 12 of the Protection of
Women from Domestic Violation Act, 2005
wherein the petitioner, i.e. the aggrieved party
prayed for an order under Section 23 of the Act
for interim relief. That prayer was rejected by
the learned Judicial Magistrate, 5th Court at
Howrah in Misc. Case No. 340 of 2010.
None appears on behalf of the opposite
parties despite receiving notices. Heard Mr.
Gayen, learned Counsel appearing for the
petitioner/aggrieved party. It is stated that the
petitioner has been ousted by the opposite
parties and opposite parties are making efforts
to alienate the 'share household' in dispute.
The interim relief prayed for was rejected by
the learned Magistrate on the ground that the
petitioner and her children are living elsewhere
for a considerable long period and there is no
possibility of commission of domestic violence at
present. Whether the petitioner was subjected
to domestic violence is a question of fact and to
be ascertained only after recording of evidence.
The learned Magistrate refused to grant interim
relief without recording evidence challenging
that order dated 20.02.2012, this application
has been filed by the petitioner/aggrieved party.
I find nothing wrong in the order. If the
petitioner is not residing in the share household
with the opposite parties at present, there is no
possibility of further domestic violence. The
learned Magistrate was not at all incorrect to say
that recording evidence is required to establish
domestic violence which had taken place long
back in order to grant relief under Sections 18
and 19 of the Act. Accordingly, I find no patent
illegality and irregularity in the order so as to
upset in this revision.
The application being CRAN 2179 of 2012
stands dismissed.
However, the respondent herein are
directed to comply with the direction of this Court on 01.02.2013 in CRAN 2179 OF 2012. I clarify the position by directing them not to alienate the 'share household' in dispute in any manner till the application under Section 12 of the Act is disposed of by the learned Magistrate.
The Learned Magistrate is directed to dispose of the application under Section 12 as early as possible preferably within two months.
The application being CRR 1186 of 2012 is disposed of.
Criminal Section is directed to supply urgent certified copy of this order, if applied for, to the parties after compliance of necessary formalities.
[Kanchan Chakraborty, J.]