Reduction of the amount of interim maintenance awarded by the Magistrate u/s 23 of DV Act without giving an opportunity of hearing to the opposite party/wife is illegal on a petition by husband before Sessions Judge u/s 29 of DV Act.
Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
CRR 423 of 2018
CRAN 523 of 2018
Snigdha Mukherjee –vs- State of West Bengal & Anr.
Mr. Prasenjit Mukherjee….for the petitioner
Mr. Rana Mukherjee, A.P.P.
Ms. Debjani Sahu ……for the State
Order Dated: 20/07/2018
Perused the application, being CRAN 523 of 2018, filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 55 days in filing the revisional application, being CRR 423 of 2018. Causes shown are sufficient. Delay of 55 days is condoned. The application, being CRAN 523 of 2018, is allowed.
Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has filed an application for interim maintenance before the learned 9th Judicial Magistrate at Alipore under Section 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and the said interim order of maintenance dated 18th August, 2017 has been stayed by the learned Sessions Judge, Alipore, South 24 Parganas in Criminal Appeal no. 196 of 2017 without effecting notice to the petitioner in the first date of hearing of admission of appeal filed by the opposite party no.2, which is not permissible under Section 29 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and contrary to the judgment and decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (2015)2 Supreme Court Cases 99.
Mr. Rana Mukherjee, learned Additional Public Prosecutor and Ms. Debjani Sahu, learned advocates appear for the State.
Perused the order dated 14th September, 2017 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Alipore, South 24 Parganas in Criminal Appeal no. 196 of 2017 staying the operation of the order dated 18th August, 2017 to the extent of the amount of interim maintenance awarded by the learned Magistrate without giving an opportunity of hearing to the opposite party/wife.
The order dated 14th September, 2017 passed in Criminal Appeal no. 196 of 2017 is thus quashed and set aside as it is not permissible under Section 29 of the Protection of Women from domestic Violence Act, 2005. The learned Sessions Judge is requested to proceed with the appeal in accordance with law and to conclude the same at an earliest.
Accordingly, the revisional application is allowed.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on priority basis.