IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION

APPELLATE SIDE

Present:-

HON’BLE JUSTICE CHAITALI CHATTERJEE DAS.

CRR 42 OF 2025

SAMIR HALDER

For the Petitioner : Mr. Abhijit Sarkar, Adv.

Mr. Raja Biswas, Adv.

For the Opposite

Party No. : Mr. Jayanta Banerjee, Adv.

Ms. Ruximini B. Roy, Adv.

Mr. Argha Bhattacharjee, Adv.

Last heard on : 12.09.2025 Judgement on : 12.09.2025

CHAITALI CHATTERJEE DAS, J. :-

1. This revisional application under Section 528, read with Section 442 of BNSS

2023 is filed for quashing the impugned order dated 5.12.24 passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate, Railway Court, Kharagpur, as well as the proceedings of M.R case number 43/2022, under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, pending before the Court of Learned Judicial Magistrate, Railway Court at Kharagpur whereby an order has been passed, directing the present petitioner to pay a sum of ₹15,000 per month to the opposite party No. 2 and ₹10,000 per month to the minor daughter till the day

of her attaining majority as an interim maintenance from the date of filing of petition that is from 20.12.2022 .

2. The fact of the case, as it appears that the marriage between the parties were solemnised on 2.5.2004 at Chhoto, Batala, P.O and P.S – New Barrackpur, District 24 Parganas North, and after marriage, they resided together at Bombay and led their conjugal life. They were blessed with a girl child who was born on 17.3.2005 and presently an adult lady.

3. The grievance of the petitioner /husband is that a case has been filed being M.R number 14 /2022 by the Opposite Party No. 2 before the Court of Learned Judicial Magistrate Railway court at Kharagpur, Medinipur, when she is not residing within the territorial jurisdiction of the said Court and therefore, the petition filed by the Opposite Party No.2 herein is not maintainable.

4. It is submitted by the Learned Advocate representing the petitioner/husband that only in order to harass the petitioner, the opposite party No.2 has filed the proceeding before the Court at kharagpur with false statement that she is residing within the jurisdiction of the said Court. It is further submitted that the Opposite Party No.2 since 23.7.2019 is residing at her father’s house and the notice of Mat suit NO. 623/21 was served upon the opposite party No.2 at her said address which was sent under registered post and the Mat suit is pending before the Additional District Judge, Fast track Court No III, Barrackpore 24 Parganas North.

5. It is his contention that the Opposite Party No.2 has maliciously filed the maintenance case which is not under proper jurisdiction and she temporarily visits her elder sister’s house whose husband is having the railway quarter at Kharagpur and by the order passed by the Learned Trial Court is not maintainable. Therefore, the jurisdiction of the Court of Learned Judicial Magistrate, Railway Court at Kharagpur has been challenged by filing this revisional application.

6. The Learned Advocate representing the Opposite Party No. 2, on the other hand raises objection and submits that challenging the same order she has also filed a revisional application being CRR 964 of 2025, on the ground that the Learned Court did not consider the monthly income of the husband as of ₹1, 26, 288, which was disclosed by him in his affidavit of asset and thereby prayed for enhancement of the monthly maintenance. That apart the Learned Magistrate, erred in holding that the maintenance will be given to the daughter till she attained majority when the daughter is major and she is only 19 years old and still studying, and the husband has never paid any amount towards her education, and she will be highly prejudiced if no maintenance is given to her for higher studies.

7. It is her specific contention that presently she is residing at the address given and therefore question of lack of jurisdiction of the said court does not arise. It is further submitted that the petitioner husband has suppressed that this is