CRR/2747/2017 of VIKASH AGARWAL & ANR Vs RUCHIKA AGARWAL on 29 July 2026

1. When the matter is called on for hearing, no representation is put forth on behalf of the petitioners.

2. The opposite party is ably represented by Mr. Ankit Agarwal, learned counsel. He submits at the very threshold that the matrimonial ties between the parties have long dissolved by a decree of divorce, and the opposite party has since remarried and is living a settled life separately at new her matrimonial home. It is emphatically stated that all disputes between the parties stand fully and finally resolved, and the opposite party has no subsisting claim or grievance against the petitioners.

3. Turning to the records, it transpires that this revisional application has been languishing before this Court since 2017. Despite repeated opportunities extended to the petitioners over a span of nearly a decade to argue the matter, the petitioners have consistently chosen to stay away from the proceedings, displaying an utter disdain for the judicial process.

4. As evidenced by the office report dated 23rd July, 2026, administrative notice was duly served upon the petitioners. Their persistent and deliberate absence leaves no manner of doubt that they have abandoned all intentions of prosecuting this litigation with any degree of seriousness.

5. It is a cardinal principle of the administration of criminal justice that criminal proceedings and revisional remedies cannot be permitted to remain in a state of perpetual limbo through the indolence or deliberate default of a litigant. The right to speedy justice and the expeditious culmination of judicial proceedings are intrinsic facets of the rule of law. A litigant cannot invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 397/482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, secure an interim protection, and thereafter go into hibernation for a decade to frustrate the rightful claims of an adversary. Such systemic abuse of the process of law must be firmly deprecated.

6. Accordingly, this Court proceeds to examine and evaluate the merits of the challenge based on the materials available on record.

7. The instant revisional application is directed against the order dated 5th May, 2017, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Hooghly, in Criminal Appeal No. 11 of 2017. The said appeal arose out of an order dated 9th March, 2017, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 4th Court, Hooghly, in M.C. Case No. 17 of 2013 under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

8. A meticulous scrutiny of the impugned appellate order reveals that the learned Sessions Judge granted a conditional interim stay of operation of the trial court’s order, stipulating that appellant Nos. 1 and 2 shall pay Rs. 20,000/- each per month (totaling Rs. 40,000/- per month) to respondent No. 1, Ruchika Agarwal, by the

10th day of each succeeding English calendar month pending final disposal of the appeal, failing which the appeal would stand automatically dismissed.

9. Upon a comprehensive appraisal of the impugned order in light of the objective parameters of the Domestic Violence Act, this Court fails to detect any patent illegality, perversity, or jurisdictional error. The condition imposed by the lower appellate court was a calibrated balancing of equities, ensuring that the wife was not left destitute while the appeal was being contested. More importantly, in view of the subsequent developments namely, that the opposite party has remarried, is leading a peaceful life in her new matrimonial home, and harbours no further claims whatsoever, the very substratum of the grievance has evaporated.

10. When the substantive disputes have been extinguished by subsequent events and the beneficiary of the impugned maintenance order no longer presses any claim, equity demands that this Court refuses to exercise its discretionary revisional jurisdiction to reopen a settled chapter. The judicial clock cannot be turned back merely to accommodate the whimsical absence of defaulting petitioners.

11. Consequently, this Court is of the firm view that no interference is warranted with the impugned order.

12. In view of the afore said discussions, the revisional application, being C.R.R. No. 2747 of 2017, along with the connected application, being CRAN 1 of 2017 (Old CRAN 3511 of 2017), is accordingly dismissed.

13. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.

14. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance of all requisite formalities. (Uday Kumar, J.)