Skip to content
Try for free
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.
See full guide →

Sandhya Ghosh.

Type Court Judgment Court Kolkata Decided Jul 04, 2011
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/920225

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
AI Brief & Ask Semantic Search Verdict Lens Devil's Bench DocMind
Start free trial See sample brief

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Kolkata High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
C.R.R.3298 of 2008.
Subject
Criminal

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Criminal

Key legal issue
Criminal
Acts & sections
Code of Criminal Procedure (CPC) - Section 125, 401, 482

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Sandhya Ghosh.

Advocate Mr. Kallol Guha Thakurata. Adv

Legal References

Acts
Code of Criminal Procedure (CPC) - Section 125, 401, 482

Excerpt

.....no one is appearing on behalf of the petitioner and it appears to me that the petitioner has no interest at all. 5. seen the photo copy of the order passed in title suit no.1170 of 2003 by the learned judge, viii bench of the city civil court at calcutta wherein the learned court passed one decree declaring that no marriage was solemnized and/or performed on any date, day and place between the plaintiff and the defendant. the defendant in that suit is the petitioner herein. there is nothing on record to show that said decree has been set aside by any higher forum. it is a decree passed by a civil court regarding status of the party and of course, binding on the parties. the judgment impugned refusing maintenance appears to be correct. 6. this apart, there is delay of 665 days in filing the revisional application. the delay has not yet been condoned. 7. considering the facts above and taking note of the fact that the petitioner is not appearing on calls since filing of the application, i find it inexpedient to keep this matter pending any longer. 8. the revisional application thus stands dismissed and is disposed of. the judgment passed in title suit no.1170 of 2003 be kept with the record. 9. urgent xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, shall be given to the learned advocate of the opposite party, as early as possible.

Full Judgment

1. None appears on behalf of the petitioner on repeated calls. Mr. Guha Thakurata, learned Counsel appearing for the opposite party no.1 submits that since filing of the application in the year 2008, no effort was made on behalf of the petitioner to move the application. No order of stay is also passed. Adjournments granted freely to the petitioner till this date.

2. This application has been filed praying for setting aside of the order dated 14.11.2006 passed by the learned Family Court, Kolkata in Misc. Case No.117 of 2002 under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

3. The petitioner herein prayed for maintenance claiming herself as wife of the opposite party. The learned Court dismissed her petition after finding that there was no marriage between the petitioner and the opposite party.

4. However, no one is appearing on behalf of the petitioner and it appears to me that the petitioner has no interest at all.

5. Seen the photo copy of the order passed in Title Suit No.1170 of 2003 by the learned Judge, VIII Bench of the City Civil Court at Calcutta wherein the learned Court passed one decree declaring that no marriage was solemnized and/or performed on any date, day and place between the plaintiff and the defendant. The defendant in that suit is the petitioner herein. There is nothing on record to show that said decree has been set aside by any higher Forum. It is a decree passed by a Civil Court regarding status of the party and of course, binding on the parties. The judgment impugned refusing maintenance appears to be correct.

6. This apart, there is delay of 665 days in filing the revisional application. The delay has not yet been condoned.

7. Considering the facts above and taking note of the fact that the petitioner is not appearing on calls since filing of the application, I find it inexpedient to keep this matter pending any longer.

8. The revisional application thus stands dismissed and is disposed of. The judgment passed in Title Suit No.1170 of 2003 be kept with the record.

9. Urgent xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, shall be given to the learned Advocate of the opposite party, as early as possible.

Continue Your Research

Same Court & Year Kolkata · 2011 Same Parties Sandhya Ghosh. vs Same Subject Criminal Same Judge Kanchan Chakraborty, J. Acts & Sections Code of Criminal Procedure (CPC) - Section 125, 401, 482
Criminal

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial
1M+ judgments indexed

Brief any judgment in 18 sections.

Search Supreme Court, High Courts, and tribunals - then open an AI Brief on any result. Core search is free; full AI desk free for 7 days.

Start 7-day free trial - no card Talk to Sales