Monalisa Parveen @ Monalisa Parvin v. State Of West Bengal And ANR

12.09.2025 RANJAN Item no.8 Court No.22

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE CRR 3243 OF 2025 WITH (CRAN 1/2025) In the matter of : MONALISA PARVEEN @ MONALISA PARVIN ............. Petitioner Mr. Surajit Basu, Adv.

Ms. Jasika Alam, Adv.

Mr. Purnankar Biswas, Adv.

..........For the Petitioner In Re: CRAN 1/2025

1. This is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for the condonation of a delay of 11 days in filing the instant criminal revision.

2. The delay is attributed to the financial hardship of the petitioner, as detailed in paragraphs 4 and 5 of this application.

3. The explanation provided is deemed sufficient to justify the delay. The delay is, therefore, condoned.

4. Consequently, the application, being CRAN 1 of 2025, is disposed of.

In re: CRR 3243 of 2025

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner sought a direction only in respect of prayer no. (C) of the application, which concerns the expeditious disposal of Criminal Revision No. 70 of 2025, pending before the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, 5th Court, at Barasat, North 24 Parganas.

6. The counsel submits that the petitioner's interests are adversely affected by the order dated April 5, 2025. This order stayed the proceedings of M. Execution Case No. 158 of 2023 until April 10, 2025, on the condition that the O.P. (husband) pay Rs. 2,500/- to the petitioner from the date of filing this revision.

7. The factual matrix of this case reveals a prolonged and distressing state of affairs. The petitioner, a wife, was initially granted maintenance of Rs. 3,000 per month by an order dated June 3, 2022. This amount was subsequently reduced to Rs. 2,500 per month by an order dated March 12, 2025, passed in Criminal Revision No. 90 of 2024 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, 7th Court Barasat, North 24 Parganas.

8. Despite this, the execution of the maintenance order has been continuously obstructed. The petitioner's counsel has highlighted that a stay on the execution proceedings has been granted by the revisional court, causing severe financial hardship to the petitioner.

9. It has been brought to the attention of this Court that the proceedings in the lower court have been subjected to protracted and unnecessary adjournments. Such delays are a travesty of justice, especially in a maintenance case where the very livelihood of a petitioner is at stake. The sensitive nature of these matters demands a sense of urgency, and the prolonged pendency is, in this case, wholly unacceptable and contrary to the spirit of the law.

10. In light of these observations, the Court finds sufficient merit in the petitioner's plea. Accordingly, the Learned Additional District Judge, 5th Court, Barasat, North 24 Parganas, is hereby directed to take all necessary measures to ensure the expeditious hearing and disposal of the aforementioned case.

11. The learned Trial Court is further instructed to refrain from granting any unnecessary adjournments.

Should an adjournment be absolutely unavoidable, it shall be for the briefest possible period.

12. As the purpose of this application has been served by the issuance of these directions in respect of prayer (c) of the application, the matter is accordingly disposed of.

13. There shall be no order as to costs.

14. An urgent photostat certified copy of this order shall be provided to the parties as per the existing provisions of law and rule, if applied for.

(Uday Kumar, J.)