Mr. Kushal Chatterjee v. The State

trial and marked as Exhibit 8. Learned trial court after conclusion of argument, delivered judgment on 27.04.2017 whereby the learned trial court allowed the said Misc. case no. 149 of 2011 holding that the petitioner of the said Misc. case is entitled to get cash of Rs. 7,00,000/- and gold ornaments of 30 bhories from the opposite party/husband herein. Challenging the said order dated 27.4.2017 passed by the learned trial court, in the said Misc. case, the petitioner herein preferred revisional application in the court of learned Additional District Judge, Bolpur which was registered as criminal revision no. 21 of 2017. Learned revisional court while disposing the said criminal revision no. 21 of 2017 by the impugned order, was pleased to affirm the judgment passed by the learned trial court on 27.4.2017 in aforesaid Misc. case no. 149 of 2011. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that learned court below wrongly came to the finding that the case under section 498A IPC is pending against the petitioner and has got confused with regard to the existing system of giving money and gold ornaments to be given by the father to his marrying daughter at 3 the time of marriage. He further submits that if such money and gold ornaments were given to the bride being opposite party no. 1 by her father there was no question or context at all to give it to the bridegroom i.e. the instant petitioner in any manner. While deciding the matter, the learned court below has come to the finding upon having assumed that the said money and gold ornaments are in the custody of bridegroom i.e. the instant petitioner and accordingly, the bride i.e. opposite party no. 1 is entitled to get it back from the bridegroom on the dissolution of marriage. He further submits that all throughout the records of the case, it does not transpire that it has at all been established that the money and gold ornaments allegedly given to the bride is in the custody of the bridegroom. There is no evidence to that effect also. Hence the petitioner is not entitle to the money or ornaments as claimed by the opposite party no. 1. At no point of time or on any occasion, the petitioner has admitted at all that the cash and/or ornaments were been given to him. Accordingly, he had prayed for setting aside the impugned order. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 1 submits that all the properties were given to the bride and not to the bridegroom and the marriage registrar has categorically stated in his evidence that all those properties are the properties of the bride which was given at the time of marriage. He further submits that being aggrieved by the order passed by the trial court, the petitioner has preferred first revisional application before the revisional court which was dismissed and as such second revisional application 4 over the self-same issue is not maintainable and the petitioner cannot press this revisional application before this court in the guise of appeal. In this context, he relied upon case laws reported