← Library
Calcutta High CourtCRR/3584/2008dismissed

Mrityunjoy Pramanick v. Sumita Pramanick

2023-03-23Hon'Ble Justice Siddhartha Roy Chowdhury2 pages

23.03.2023 35_36 SB Ct. No.236 CRR 1096 of 2009 In the matter of : Sm. Sumitra Pramanik with CRR 3584 of 2008 In the matter of : Mritunjoy Pramanik This criminal revision is manifestation of displeasure of the petitioner Mritunjoy Pramanik over the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 2nd Fast Track Court, Diamond Harbour, South 24 Parganas who was pleased to grant a sum of Rs. 500/- to the opposite party towards maintenance with further direction upon the petitioner to pay the said maintenance together with arrears of maintenance amounting to Rs.14,000/-. Briefly stated, Smt. Sumitra Pramanik mother of the petitioner before this Court filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance from her son. It is contended that after the demise of her husband the petitioner is dependent upon her sons.

But they are reluctant to maintain her. Mrityunjoy Pramanick, the elder son of the petitioner on 25.3.2005 drove out the petitioner, from the house. However, he is earning his bread from the landed property left by his father, despite having sufficient means as the son refused to maintain the mother, she was left with no other option but to approach the Court.

Learned Trial Court after considering the evidence on record adduced by parties refused to grant maintenance on the ground that she was being maintained by other three sons, therefore, she was not in need any maintenance for her

sustenance. The judgement of learned Trial Court was challenged before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 2nd Fast Track Court, Diamond Harbour, South 24 Parganas in Criminal Motion No. 67 / 07 and the learned Court exercising revisional jurisdiction was pleased to grant a sum of Rs. 500/- towards maintenance in favour of the petitioner.

Being one of the sons Mritunjoy Pramanik, who has challenged the order before this Court, cannot disown his responsibility to maintain his mother, therefore, I do not find any cogent reason to interfere with the order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, 2nd Fast Track Court, Diamond Harbour, South 24 Parganas.

This revisional application, stands dismissed, however, without any order as to costs.

Let a copy of the order be sent to the learned Trial Court for information and necessary action.

(Siddhartha Roy Chowdhury, J.)