Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Sri Shibnath Roy vs Smt. Satabdi Roy (Aich) on 28 June, 2019
Author: Subhasis Dasgupta
Bench: Subhasis Dasgupta
1 28.06.2019
Ct No.22 C.R.R. No. 284 of 2019 Sri Shibnath Roy.
Versus Smt. Satabdi Roy (Aich).
Mr. Saryati Datta, Adv.
Ms. Ranjajdini Das, Adv.
Ms. Chaitali Mukhopadhyay ... For the Petitioner Ms. Sucharita Biswas, Adv.
...for the opposite party Mr. Binoy Kumar Panda, Adv.
Ms. Puspita Saha, Adv.
...for the State.
The impugned orders dated 13.12.2018 and 04.01.2019 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate at Barasat in Criminal Execution Case No. 104 of 2013 arising out of Maintenance Case No. 442 of 2009, wherein the petitioner/husband was directed to pay Rs.25000/- on each of the two dates, even after making payment of Rs.10,000/- on 13.12.2018 and Rs.25,000/- on 04.01.20019 are the subject of challenge in this revisional application.
The op/wife initiated an Execution Case praying for recovery of maintenance amount for the period from 12.08.2009 to 14.07.2013 in view of the order of the court granting maintenance giving effect for the date of filing of the maintenance proceeding.
The proceeding of Misc. Execution Case No. 104 of 2013 has been stayed by an order dated 18.02.2019 passed in Criminal Revision No. 161 of 2018 by the learned Sessions Judge in-charge North 24 Parganas. 2 In the instant case, the outstanding claim of maintenance comes to Rs.4,53,900/- against which it is stand of the revisionist/husband, that he has already deposited substantial amount towards the outstanding amount. After the recording the order dated 23.08.2013 in money Execution Case No. 104 of 2013, the court below in connection with aforesaid Execution case proceeded to record those two orders, now under challenge, directing husband to pay further amount, even after liquidation of Rs.10,000/- on 13.13.2018, and Rs.25,000/- on 04.01.2019. Keeping in view the pendency of Criminal Revision NO. 161 of 2018, wherein an order of stay has been granted having effect over the pendency Misc. Execution Case No. 204 of 2013, the instant revisional application appears to hopelessly barred.
The interdict contained in Section 397(20 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is that the powers of revision shall not be exercised in relation to any interlocutory order. Whether an order is interlocutory or not, cannot be decided by merely looking at the order or merely because the order was passed at the interelocutory state. Applying the principle reported in (2001) 7SCC 401 in the case of Bhaskar Industries Ltd. vs. Bhiwani Denim & Apparels Ltd. And Ors. the safe test is that whether the contention of the petitioner, who has moved the revisional application before this court, as against the orders under challenge, if upheld, would result in culminate of the pending criminal proceedings. If they would, then the order is not interlocutory in spite of the fact that it was passed during interlocutory stage. The pending Execution Case having already been stayed by an order dated 18.02.2019, passed in Criminal Revision No. 161 of 2018, and without the decision of such criminal revision, wherein the order passed in money Execution Case No.104 3 of 2013 has been challenged, the impugned orders do not pass the test of the interlocutory order so as to become revisable.
The revisional application fails and accordingly dispose of. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties, upon compliance of necessary formalities.
(Subhasis Dasgupta, J.)