SANKAR ACHARYYA, J. - (1.) This revisional application under Sections 397/401/482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been filed by two petitioners Indranil Dasgupta and his mother Rina Dasgupta against two opposite parties The State of West Bengal and wife of petitioner Indranil Dasgupta viz. Debjani Dasgupta nee Sengupta challenging the judgment dated 16th June, 2014 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track, 2nd Court, Alipore, South 24 Parganas in Criminal Appeal No. 121/13 under Section 29 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (in short P.W.D.V. Act), 2005.
(2.) In the impugned judgment the observations of learned Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Court, Alipore made in A.C. 2143/12 on 3rd August, 2013 have been affirmed. In the said interim order dated 03.08.2013 under Section 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 learned Magistrate has observed that the domestic relationship of the parties and their shared household are not denied. Domestic violence has taken place as appears from that order. Regarding income of petitioner Indranil Dasgupta it has been observed by learned Magistrate that petitioner of that case (opposite party no. 2 herein) did not file sufficient document in support of monthly income of present petitioner no. 1. Regarding entitlement of petitioner of that case learned Magistrate opined that there is urgency to pass order of protection against respondents (petitioners herein) monetary relief of Rs.15,000/ - for the aggrieved party (opposite party no. 2 herein) and her child in interim form till final disposal of the case.
(3.) In this revisional application contending inter alia the petitioners have alleged that observations of learned Additional Sessions Judge in the impugned judgment in appeal and of learned Judicial Magistrate are based on surmise and conjecture. Petitioners have alleged that the petitioner no. 1 has no independent source of income and he only works in his father's business and so passing of the order for payment of Rs.15,000/ - per month is his great hardship and it causes miscarriage of justice. Claiming the impugned judgment as bad in law and facts petitioners have prayed for setting aside or modification of the impugned judgment.;