ASIM KUMAR MONDAL, J. - (1.) THIS is an application under Section 397/401 read with 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The case of the petitioners is that the Opposite Party No.2 Smt. Pranoti Ghosh the stepmother of petitioner No.1. The petitioner No.2 is the wife of petitioner No.1. The Opposite Party No.2 i.e. the step mother of petitioner No.1 is being staying the same rented residence alongwith petitioners. Petitioner No.1 has duly fulfilled his duties of a son towards his step mother. The petitioners have always taken every possible care of the Opposite party no.2 and have provided for her medical expenses, food expenses etc. Admittedly, the relation between the petitioners and Opposite party No.2 is not cordial. Several litigations are pending between them. The opposite party No.2 has initiated the present case by filing an application before the Ld. Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Kolkata, under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 whereby seeking relieves in terms of Sections 18/19/20/22 of the said Act. In the midst of present proceedings, the opposite Party No.2 filed an application under Section 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, before the Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate, 16th Court, praying for an order of ad-interim maintenance from the petitioners at the rate of Rupees ten thousand per month, the Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate, 16th Court, Calcutta, by an order dated August 22, 2012, allowed the prayer of opposite Party No.2 for ad-interim maintenance and directed the petitioners to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand) per month, her within ten days of each succeeding month when it becomes due.
(2.) THAT being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order of ad- interim maintenance, dated August 22, 2012, passed by the Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate, 16th Court, Calcutta, the petitioners preferred appeal under Section 29 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, before the Ld. Chief Judge, City Sessions Court, Calcutta. The said appeal was dismissed by upholding the order impugned. Under the circumstances, being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order dated January 5, 2013, passed by the Ld. Chief Judge, City Sessions Court, Calcutta, in connection with criminal appeal No.2/13 affirming the order passed by Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate, 16th Court, Calcutta. The petitioners moved the present application on the grounds that Ld. Chief Judge, City Sessions Court, Calcutta has passed the impugned order dated January 5, 2013, mechanically and arbitrarily which has caused custom prejudice to the petitioners. Further that Ld. Judge erred in law holding that the Opposite Party No.2 has been neglected by the petitioners in respect of the fact that opposite Party No.2 is staying with the petitioners in the same household. Further that the application for ad-interim maintenance was made by the Opposite Party No.2 at belated stage only to frustrate the needs of justice.
(3.) MR . Dipanjan Chatterjee, appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have never denied the Opposite Party No.2 any sorts of maintenance and also petitioner No.1 always regards the opposite party No.2 as her mother. Admittedly, many cases are pending between the parties. In view of the order of Court, the operation of joint account has been stopped. The petitioners arranged everything towards the treatment and livelihood of his mother under such circumstances no question arises for maintenance.;