2022 Supreme(Cal) 349
BIBEK CHAUDHURI
Tripti Goswami (ghosh) – Appellant
Versus
Bappa Ghosh – Respondent
Advocates appeared:
Mr. Sandipan Ganguly, Sr. Adv. Mr. Dipanjan Dutt for the petitioner, for the Appellant; ; , for the Respondent
Judgement Key Points
Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:
- Case Details: The case is Tripti Goswami (ghosh) vs. Bappa Ghosh, CRR 1647 of 2022, decided by the High Court of Calcutta on 08-09-2022, involving Civil Law - Domestic Violence. [judgement_subject]
- Core Legal Obligation: Parties are obligated to file an affidavit of assets in proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act or Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as per the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in Rajnesh versus Neha. [judgement_act_referred][Ratio Decidendi]
- Procedural History: The petitioner appealed an order by the Judicial Magistrate that did not grant monetary relief; this appeal was dismissed by the Sessions Judge. The current case is a challenge to the judgment of the Court of Appeal. [Fact of the Case] (!) (!)
- Reasoning for Remand: The court noted that the parties did not file affidavits of assets before the Magistrate. Crucially, the Supreme Court's decision in Rajnesh versus Neha was published after the appeal was decided by the Sessions Judge. Consequently, the previous orders were set aside. [Finding of the Court] (!) [9000459980005]
- Specific Directions: The court directed the trial court (Judicial Magistrate, 10th Court, Alipore) to decide the application under Section 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act afresh once the parties file their affidavits of assets. (!) [9000459980008]
- Timeline: The parties were directed to file the affidavit of assets within 10 days from the communication of the order, and the Magistrate was directed to fix the matter for hearing after a fortnight. (!) [9000459980008]
- Final Outcome: The order dated 19th September, 2019, passed by the Judicial Magistrate, and the judgment dated 22nd February, 2022, in Criminal Appeal No.47 of 2020, were set aside. (!) [9000459980009]
- Interim Relief: The court clarified that no interim order of monetary relief would be passed at this stage due to the absence of the opposite party's advocate and the intent to decide the matter afresh on a complete record of assets. (!)
JUDGMENT
Bibek Chaudhuri, J. - Criminal Appeal No.47 of 2020 was filed by the present petitioner assailing an order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 10th Court, Alipore in a proceeding under section 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (hereafter described as the said Act) being A.C. Case No.2634 of 2016.
2. While disposing of an application under Section 23 of the said Act the learned Magistrate did not feel it necessary to pass any order as to monetary relief in favour of the petitoner. Subsequently, the petitioner's appeal was dismissed on contest by the learned Sessions Judge, South 24 Parganas at Alipore.
3. The petitioner has assailed the judgment passed by the Court of Appeal in Criminal Appeal No.47 of 2020 affirming the order dated 19th September, 2019 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 10th Court at Alipore in an application under Section 23 of the said Act.
4. When the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned advocate for the opposite party is found absent on call. Adjournment was sought on the ground that the learned advocate for the opposite party is out of station. However, this Court is not inclined to adjourn the hearing of the i
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
