K.Vinijhaa And ANR v. Shri.P.Kalaiarasan

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION [ CIRCUIT BENCH OF CALCUTTA HIGH COURT ] ** PRESENT: THE HON'BLE JUSTICE JAY SENGUPTA CRR/23/2025 [IA NO: CRAN/1/2025] K. VINIJHAA AND ANOTHER ... PETITIONER VS.

SHRI P. KALAIARASAN ... RESPONDENT For the petitioner : Mr Lokesh Chezian N For the respondent : Mr. Shatadru Chakraborty, Sr.Adv.

Mr. Dibesh Dwivedi Heard on : June 18, 2025 Judgment on : June 18, 2025 JAY SENGUPTA, J.

1.

Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits as follows. The petitioners are the two minor children of the respondent No.

1. Amounts as monthly maintenance allowance were granted to the petitioners under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to be paid by the respondent No. 1. As he defaulted in making such payment, a Misc. Execution Case was filed. But, notice/summons could not be served on the respondent No. 1 as he was staying at a place in Madurai, Tamil Nadu and was avoiding service. This is despite the fact

that the respondent No. 1 is a government servant. An application made before the learned Magistrate for service of notice by electronic mode was turned down on the ground that appropriate Rules have not been framed by the Andaman and Nicobar Administration.

2.

Learned Senior counsel representing the State submits that it is true that Rules in this regard have not yet been formulated by the Administration. However, an attempt can be made for service of notice by regular postal mode.

3.

It is expected that the Administration would soon come up with the necessary Rules in this regard as contemplated under the BNSS. 4.

But, the private respondent cannot be allowed to avoid service of notice in the execution case, thus depriving his minor children from receiving monthly maintenance.

5.

For the present, the petitioners shall be at liberty to cause service of notice upon the respondent No. 1 by speed post with acknowledgement due as well as by courier within a fortnight from this date. Appropriate affidavit of service shall be filed before the learned Magistrate. 6.

As an exigent measure, the Superintendent of Police, South Andaman is requested to have copy of the notice, forwarded in this regard by the petitioners through the learned Public Prosecutor, served upon respondent No. 1 through the Office of the City Commissioner,

Madurai within a fortnight from the date on which the copy of the notice is forwarded.

7.

A report to that effect shall be filed before the learned Magistrate on the next date fixed.

8.

As the writ petition is being disposed of without calling for affidavits, the allegations leveled against the respondents shall be deemed to have been denied.

9.

With the above observations and directions, CRR/23/2025 along with CRAN/1/2025 is disposed of.

Urgent certified copy of this order be supplied to the learned counsels for the parties upon compliance of usual formalities. ( Jay Sengupta, J. )