IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE PRESENT:

THE HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE AJOY KUMAR MUKHERJEE CRR 2556 of 2023 Rinki Chakraborty Nee Das Vs.

The State of West Bengal & anr.

For the petitioner : Mr. Satadru Lahiri Ms. Mahua Chattopadhyay Mr. Safdar Azam For the opposite party No.2 : Mr. Sandipan Ganguly Mr. Debajyoti Deb Mr. Shyamal Mondal Mr. Somdyuti Parekh Heard on : 08.07.2025 Judgment on : 12.09.2025 Dr. Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J.

1. This application has been directed against judgment and order dated 8th June, 2023 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Calcutta in Misc. Case no. 62 of 2013 whereby and where under, the court below rejected petitioner’s/wife’s prayer for maintenance made under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short Cr.P.C).

2. Petitioners case is that her marriage with the opposite party herein/husband took place on 4th August, 2012 under the Special Marriage Act, 1954. Upon registration of the Marriage the couple went back to their respective paternal home. Subsequently the husband/opposite party assured that upon return they will arrange for social marriage and the petitioner would be permanently taken to her matrimonial home. During the interim period the husband/opposite party from time to time lived together with the petitioner at her paternal home and their marriage was duly consummated and the couple also visited several places and stayed together as husband and wife. During this period the petitioner on various occasion requested the husband/opposite party and his parents to make arrangement for taking her permanently at her matrimonial home, but the husband/opposite party and his family members avoided the same on several pretexts. In the first week of August, 2013 the husband/opposite party represented that his parents are not willing to return her to her matrimonial home in Kolkata. The petitioner expressed her willingness to go to Panagarh and live there with her husband. While the petitioner and her parents insisted the opposite party and his parents to take the petitioner to her matrimonial home, the opposite party and his family members became furious and they threatened and pressurized the petitioner for mutual divorce.

3. The petitioner’s further case is that in the aforesaid back ground, she lodged a written complain on 16th August, 2013. The petitioner repeatedly went to her matrimonial home at Taltala, Kolkata but the husband/opposite party and his family members did not allow her to enter, even they refused to return her the stridhan articles.

4. Finding no other alternative petitioner preferred the instant application under section 125 of the Cr.P.C. praying for Rs. 10,000/- per month towards her maintenance along with a prayer for interim maintenance. The husband/opposite party herein appeared in the said maintenance proceeding and filed written objection against petitioner’s prayer for interim maintenance. By an order dated 6th January, 2015 the trial court below was pleased to allow the petitioner’s prayer for interim maintenance thereby directed the husband/opposite party to pay a sum of Rs. 4,000/- per month to the petitioner towards interim maintenance from 1st January, 2015 as well as a sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards litigation cost. The said order was assailed before this High Court being CRR no. 530 of 2015 and this court refused to interfere on the grounds stated therein. The said order passed by this High Court in CRR 530 of 2015 was again assailed before the Apex Court in SLP No. 5868 of 2015 but the said special leave petition was also dismissed by the Apex Court and thereby affirmed the order of court below.

5. During course of trial of the main maintenance preceding the petitioner adduced herself as P.W-1 in support of her contention and the opposite party/husband adduced himself as D.W-1 and also exhibited documents in order to shake the case of the petitioner. Upon recording of evidences form both the sides and also c