24.07.2026 Item No.12 Ct. No. 34 nb CRR 497 of 2025 With IA No. CRAN 1 of 2025 In the matter of: Chiranjib Biswas. ...… petitioner. Ms. Papiya Chattopadhyay .…For the Petitioner. Mr. Sabyasachi Mukherjee, …… for the O.P. 1. This is an application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. corresponding to Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 against an order dated 17.01.2025 passed by Learned J.M., 2nd Court , Barasat, North 24 Parganas in C.Execution case no. 32 of 2023 arising out of order dated 8.5.2014 passed in C 2739 of 2012, directing the officer-in-charge , Gaighata P.S. to ensure that complainant gets right of residence in the shared household. 2. The marriage between parties was solemnised on 3.8.11 and after that they went to official staff quarter at the place of present petitioner at Tamil Nadu and lived there till 11.5.2012. After the Opposite Party no. 2 conceived, she expressed her willingness to stay at her parents’ house at Habra. She was taken to her parent’s house on 18.05.2012 and stayed till June 2012, and the present petitioner continued to pay Rs. 3000/- per month to his wife and after birth of the baby girl the petitioner sent Rs. 10,000/- towards medical expenses excepting Rs. 3000/- for September 2012. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that the O.P. no. 2 thereafter instituted a case under Section 498A/406 IPC on 13.10.2012. The petitioner had to obtain anticipatory bail in connection with the aforesaid criminal case in High Court Calcutta and directed the petitioner to pay of Rs. 5000/- per month for the O.P. no. 2 which the petitioner is complying till date. 4. The O.P. no. 2 also filed complaint case under Section 12 of PWDV Act ,2005 before the Court of the Learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Barasat ,North 24 Parganas claiming monetary relief under Section 20 of the said Act for herself and her minor daughter. On 08.05.2014 the Learned Court passed an ex parte order on the basis of an application by the opposite party no. 2 under Section 23(2) of DV Act and also directed the husband to pay a monthly maintenance of Rs. 8000/- to be paid to the petitioner wife from the date of order. 5. After that the husband received the notice of C. Execution case no. 246/2014 wherefrom he came to know that one complaint case being no. 2739/2012 was filed by his wife on 20.11.2012 and copy of the said complaint case was served upon him only on 12.05.2016. Regarding the maintenance case, on 23.03.2022 Hon’ble High Court in three criminal revisional applications i.e. CRR 2143/201/, CRR 29/2018, CRR 30/2018 directed the petitioner husband to pay a sum of Rs. 10000/- per 2 month till the Learned Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Court, Barasat, North 24 Parganas comes to his finding, which the petitioner is complying regularly. 6. Thereafter, on 27.06.2016 the petitioner filed an application under Section 25(2) of PWDV Act for alteration/modification of an ex parte order dated 08.05.2014 claiming shared household. Opposite party no. 2 also preferred a Revisional application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the Judgment and Order dated May 20, 2023 passed by the Learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Barasat, North 24 Parganas which was finally disposed of and the learned Single Bench directed the husband to pay a sum of rupees 25,000/- to the wife and her minor daughter which is inclusive that is awarded in other proceedings and such payment to be made from the date of application of alimony pendente lite. 7. It was further observed that the quantum of maintenance shall be based on certain parameters such as the status of the parties, the rental expenses if she had separate accommodation, cost of living medical expenses and other ancillary expenses required to be incurred to live peaceful and comfortable life. The execution application was filed on 26.11.2023 for execution of the order dated 8.5.2014 while the husband stated that the shared household as stated by the wife in her application belongs to the mother-in-law of the wife and the said property is 3 not a joint family property, and wife went to Tamil Nadu with the husband to stay at the official accommodation which she continued up to 18.5.2012 and then went to her parent’s house. 8. The learned Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Court, Barasat, North 24 Parganas on 17.1.2025 directed the officer in charge, Gaighata police station to ensure that the opposite party wife gets the right of residence in the shared household and to ensure that the husband does not disposes the aggrieved person from the premises. 9. Being aggrieved by the said order this revisional application is filed. It is prayed by learned advocate of the petitioner that there is a considerable delay of 11 years in filing the execution case by the wife, filed in the year 2023 arising out of the original order dated 18.5.2014. The ex-parte order did not say about shared household and only after modification application filed on 27.06.2016 she expressed that she stayed at the House of mother of the petitioner. That apart the High Court while passing order directed the husband to pay Rs. 25000/- per month as maintenance ,considered all aspects as well as rental expenses by the opposite party no.2 which has been duly complied with the present petitioner. Therefore, once the issue of maintenance is decided by this Court the Judicial Magistrate while considering the aspect of the matter only on the application by opposite party no. 2 directed officer in charge, Gaighata police station on 14.05.2018 and such prayer has 4 caused serious prejudice to the present petitioner. Accordingly, prayed for dismissal of such order. 10. The learned advocate representing the opposite party no.2 on the other hand raises objection and submits that the said revisional application was filed in connection with matrimonial suit but this order is passed in respect of the direction passed in PWDV Act and hence is a separate proceeding and passed long back in the year 2014 and was not complied with .Accordingly prayed for dismissal. 11. Having heard both sides and going through the materials on record it appears that on 8.5.2014 on the basis of an application under Section 23(2) of PWDV Act the learned Magistrate restrained the respondent husband from committing any act of domestic violence upon the aggrieved person and also directed not to dispossess the aggrieved person from the shared household. In the petition filed for execution in 2023 that is after nine years the opposite party no.2 mentioned that after such order was passed she went to police station but authority refused to take any letter on her apprehension. She also stated that she was debarred from entering into the shared household and the instant petitioner restrained her, as a result the order was not complied with. 12. The averments demonstrate that since 2014 to 2023 in filing of execution petition she was not residing in the house which she claimed for shared household. The petitioner prayed 5 for necessary compliance and direction upon officer in charge to comply the order dated 14.5.2014. The petition is apparently bereft of any order passed by High Court regarding any maintenance on shared household. 13. The present petitioner filed written objection to the said petition specifically stating that she never resided in the house of the mother of the petitioner as after marriage they went to Tamil Nadu and from there the opposite party no. 2 went to her parent’s house and never returned . It appears from the records that in an order dated May 20, 2023 passed by the Learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track 5th Court, Barasat in Misc. Case no. 44 of 2020 arising out of 116 of 2019 Rs. 15000 /- per month was allowed as alimony pendent lite for the petitioner and her minor daughter. Challenging the same, a revisional application was filed by the wife being C.O 2808 of 2023. The Learned co-ordinate Bench on 30.01.2024 considered the ground for challenge of such order as the amount was low since the petitioner has to maintain herself and her minor daughter who studies in an English medium school, the salary of husband was Rs. 1,09,325.70/- per month at the material point of time and his net salary was Rs. 67,190/- per month, the husband did not have any financially dependent parent, his mother’s family pension was Rs. 15000/- per month and the wife had no income on her own. The Single Bench also considered that the maintenance had been awarded under the DV Act and CrPC 6 totalling to Rs. 10000/- and taking into account the educational background of the petitioner, total Rs. 15000/- was fixed by the Learned Trial Court. The Learned co-ordinate Bench found that both the child and the petitioner should enjoy the same status as the husband enjoys, maintenance to be paid to the wife and child should be based on certain parameters such as the status of parties, the rental expenses which petitioner would incur if she had separate accommodation along with cost of living, medical expenses, educational expenses and other ancillary expenses and the maintenance amount was enhanced from Rs. 15000/- per month to Rs. 25000/- per month. The Single Bench clarified that the said maintenance amount would be inclusive of what has been awarded in other proceedings. 14. Therefore, it is seen that while considering various parameters in quantum of maintenance, the Single Bench considered the expenses incurred by separate accommodation of wife. The order was passed while Opposite Party was duly represented. The Learned executing Court considered that since on 08.05.2014 a residence order has been already passed, the same Court cannot review or alter its own proceeding, since it is an execution Proceeding . To the extent the learned Court was right, but the Court had failed to consider the prolong delay in filing such execution application and whether any other order was passed by any other forum or not during this long span of 11 years. 7 Section 2(s) of the PWDV Act 2005 defines the expression "shared household" in the following terms: "(s) "shared household" means a household where the person aggrieved lives or at any stage has lived in a domestic relationship either singly or along with the respondent and includes such a household whether owned or tenanted either jointly by the aggrieved person and the respondent, or owned or tenanted by either of them in respect of which either the aggrieved person or the respondent or both jointly or singly have any right, title, interest or equity and includes such a household which may belong to the joint family of which the PART D respondent is a member, irrespective of whether the respondent or the aggrieved person has any right, title or interest in the shared household;" 15. The petitioner has filed the revisional application mostly on the ground that after considerable delay of eleven years in filling execution case, the Court suddenly made direction upon the Officer in charge, Gaighata Police Station to ensure that the wife gets the right of residence in the shared household. In view of the above factual matrix, there leaves no room to doubt that the wife never stayed in the house which she claimed to be shared household and the said order in the year 2014 was passed Exparte without hearing the Petitioner herein. However, under law she is also entitled to separate accommodation as an alternative to a shared household and a provision was made by the Learned Single Bench while calculating the quantum of maintenance. 16. In the above facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the order passed by Learned Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Court, Barasat passed on 17.01.2025 cannot be sustained as it would cause serious miscarriage of justice if an exparte order passed in 2014 for shared household is allowed to 8 be executed after 11 years and accordingly is liable to be set aside. However this court direct the husband to enhance the amount of Rs 25,000/- to Rs 30,000/- with effect from this date. 17. Accordingly this revisional application stands allowed. The order dated 17.1.2025 is hereby set aside . 18. All parties shall act on the server copies of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court. (CHAITALI CHATTERJEE (DAS), J.) 9