Sabita Mukherjee v. Pritam Mukherjee

29.09.2020 Ct. No.19 Sl. No.15 KS IA NO: CRAN 1 of 2020 With C.R.R. 1370 of 2020 Smt. Sabita Mukherjee -Vs.- Sri Pritam Mukherjee (Via Video Conference) Mr. Debashis Kar Mr. Subhajit Chowdhury .... for the Petitioner The learned advocate for the petitioner undertakes to affirm and properly stamp the petition as per the Rules within one month of resumption of normal functioning of the court. The petition is taken up through video conference on the basis of such undertaking. This is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking a direction upon the opposite party requiring opposite party to deposit the maintenance allowance to the bank account of the petitioner, for the Pandemic situation having surfaced all over the State.

It is submitted by the learned advocate for the petitioner that in connection with a maintenance proceeding being M. Case No.555/2012, of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, 5th Court,

Barrackpore, petitioner has already been favoured with maintenance order @ Rs.2,500/- per month. The maintenance proceeding has been disposed of on 8th July, 2014. Subsequently, an execution proceeding being MEX Case No.53 of 2017 has been routed out seeking recovery of maintenance allowance amounting to Rs.19,800/-. The execution proceeding according to the petitioner has been subjected to halt, because of the Pandemic situation resulting in utter financial distress to the petitioner-wife. Notice upon the opposite party-husband has not yet been served.

Keeping in view, the Pandemic situation surfaced all over the State and the disturbance caused to normal functioning of Court, this Court is of the view that the revisional application may be disposed of giving a suitable direction requiring the Trial Court to ascertain the outstanding amount of allowance expediting upon notice to opposite party, sought to be recovered, and after ascertaining the outstanding amount, dispose of the pending execution case in accordance with law providing sufficient opportunity of hearing to either of the parties to this case, and further permitting the opposite partyhusband to directly credit the ascertained outstanding maintenance amount in the bank account of the petitioner during the Pandemic situation, subject to furnishing the bank account of the petitioner to the opposite party-husband. The Court is of the firm belief that with this order, there will be no prejudice caused to the private opposite

party and accordingly, notice upon the opposite party stands dispensed with.

With this observation and direction, the revisional application being, C.R.R. 1370 of 2020 along with connected application being, CRAN 1 of 2020 stands disposed of.

(Subhasis Dasgupta, J.)