Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Cal) 2383
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Partha Sarathi Sen, J
MALLICK CHANDRA ROY – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. – Respondent
C.R.R. 270 of 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Debojit Kundu
For the Respondents:
The court determined that the trial court rightly deferred consideration of a Section 340 Cr.P.C. petition until the conclusion of the main suit.
Headnote:This judgment analyzes the correctness of orders passed by the Additional District Judge in a matter involving Section 340 of the Cr.P.C. The petitioner argued that the trial court erred by proceeding with an application for alimony without addressing his prior petition under Section 340 regarding alleged false statements made by the wife. The court found that the trial court’s decision to defer the Section 340 application until the main suit concluded was appropriate. The court dismissed the revision application, emphasizing no merit in the request to prioritize the Section 340 matter over the alimony application.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to the correctness of trial court orders. (Para 1 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. court's view on the handling of section 340 applications. (Para 5 , 6 , 8 , 9) |
| 3. final decision on the merit of the application. (Para 10 , 11) |
1. The correctness, legality and propriety of the order nos. 17 and
18 dated 13.03.2025 as passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Siliguri in Misc. Case no. 12 of 2024 arising out of Mat. Suit no. 336 of 2023 is the subject matter of challenge in the instant revisional application.
2. At the time of hearing learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the revisionist at the very outset draws attention of this Court to the orders impugned.
3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that from the orders impugned it would reveal that while passing the said two orders by the trial court a serious miscarriage of justice occurred in view of the fact that the learned trial court has failed to consider the true spirit of the application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. as filed by the revisionist/husband against her wife in the said Misc. case especially when it is the case of the present revisionist before thie trial court that in the affidavit as to asset the opposite party no. 2/wife herein has made false statement regarding her assets and liabilities before the trial court.
4. It is thus submitted that the learned trial court ought to have disposed of the petition under Section 340 Cr.P.C. as filed by the revisionist/husband prior to proceeding with the application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act as filed by the opposite party no. 2/wife herein.
5. This Court has meticulously gone through the order nos. 17 and
18 dated 13.03.2025 as passed by the learned trial court which are subject matter of challenge in the instant revisional application.
6. It reveals that by the said two impugned orders learned trial court has not disposed of the said application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. and on the contrary it has come to a finding that the petition under Section 340 Cr.P.C. can be taken up after disposal of the petition under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act which is an application filed by the opposite party no. 2 herein praying for alimony pande lite.
7. This Court has meticulously gone through the petition under Section 340 Cr.P.C. as filed by the revisionist before the trial court. In such application it is the specific averment of the present revisionist/husband that his wife who is the opposite party no. 2 herein has affirmed a false affidavit regarding her assets and liabilities.
8. This Court is in respectful disagreement of the learned Advocate for the revisionist that the learned trial court ought to have proceeded with the application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. as filed by the present revisionist prior to entertaining the application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act as submitted by the opposite party no. 2/wife herein.
9. It appears to this Court that the learned trial court while passing the said two impugned orders has rightly came to a finding that the allegations as made in the petition under Section 340 Cr.P.C. can be decided on conclusion of the Mat. Suit no. 336 of 2023 only when the evidence as would be led by the parties to the said suit have been duly assessed.
10. This Court thus finds no merit in the instant revisional application.
11. Accordingly, CRR 270 of 2025 is dismissed at the stage of its admission.
12. There shall be, however, no order as to costs.
13. Before parting with, this Court directs the learned trial court to come to a logical conclusion of Misc. Case no. 12 of 2024 within 30 working days from the date of communication of this order/server copy of this order without granting any unnecessary adjournment to the parties to either side.
14. Department is hereby directed forthwith to communicate a copy of this order to the learned trial court.
15. Urgent photostat certified copies of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties up
