- (1.) The petitioner has preferred this revisional application challenging the order dated April 21, 2015 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, 2nd Fast Track Court, Bichar Bhawan, in Criminal Appeal no.89 of 2014, by which learned Judge of the trial court affirmed the order dated August 11, 2014 passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 5th Court, Calcutta, in Misc. Execution Case no.12 of 2013.
(2.) It appears from the materials on record that the petitioner filed an application under Section 12 read with Sections 17/18/19/20/21/22 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 against her husband, parents-in-law and sister-inlaw before the court of learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta. It further appears from record that on April 27, 2012, the learned Magistrate gave direction to the opposite party/husband to make payment of maintenance at the rate of Rs.30,000/- per month in favour of the petitioner/wife and her two minor children, Rs.5,000/- at a time as litigation cost and Rs.15,000/- per month as rent for any accommodation of the petitioner and her two minor children. This order dated April 27, 2012 passed by learned Magistrate in connection with Case no.C-30 of 2012 was not challenged by the opposite parties before the higher forum. It also appears from record that on July 27, 2012, the opposite party no.1/husband filed an application before the court of learned Magistrate praying for modification of the earlier order in connection with providing cost of accommodation to the petitioner by offering accommodation of the father-in-law of the petitioner. On August 27, 2012, the learned Magistrate modified the earlier order dated April 27, 2012 by cancelling the direction of payment of Rs.15,000/- per month towards cost of accommodation to the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner will reside in the ground floor premises of the father-inlaw at BJ-55, Sector-II, Salt Lake City, Calcutta. The father-in-law of the petitioner filed an application before the court of learned Magistrate for modification of the order dated August 27, 2012 and for direction to the petitioner to hand over the keys of the ground floor premises of the father-in-law at Salt Lake City on the ground that the petitioner is not residing in the said accommodation and the ground floor premises is being damaged as it is under constant lock and key. On August 11, 2014, learned Magistrate gave direction to the petitioner to hand over the key of ground floor premises of her fatherin-law at Salt Lake City within a period of 14 days from the date of the order. The petitioner challenged the said order passed by learned Magistrate before the court of sessions by preferring Criminal Appeal no.89 of 2014. The learned Additional Sessions Judge disposed of Criminal Appeal no.89 of 2014 on April 21, 2015 by affirming the order passed by learned Magistrate on August 11, 2014. The said judgement and order dated April 21, 2015 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge in Criminal Appeal no.89 of 2014 is under challenge in the instant revision.
(3.) Mr. Siladitya Sanyal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, contends that learned Magistrate gave direction to the husband of the petitioner to make payment of Rs.15,000/- towards cost of accommodation at the time of passing the interim order on April 27, 2012 and the said order was modified by learned Magistrate by cancellation of the direction to make payment of cost of accommodation when the petitioner was offered accommodation in the ground floor premises of her father-in-law at Salt Lake City. By referring to the letter dated February 2, 2013 filed by the petitioner before the Officer-in-Charge of Bidhannagar East Police Station which was entered in General Diary no.91 dated February 2, 2013, Mr. Sanyal submits that the petitioner was unable to stay in the accommodation provided by the father-in-law of the petitioner as the petitioner was not getting sufficient water in the premises and she was unable to operate the pump as the pump was put under padlock. According to Mr. Sanyal, the petitioner was compelled to leave the accommodation of the father-in-law, but learned Magistrate directed the petitioner to hand over the key of the said accommodation to the father-in-law of the petitioner without restoring the previous order of providing cost of accommodation at the rate of Rs.15,000/- per month. Mr. Sanyal submits that the petitioner is facing much inconvenience and hardship in spite of sufficient income of the husband of the petitioner who is working in the United States.;