SHAILESH J PARADESHI Vs. PRABHAVATHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner regarding maintainability. Since the present petition is sought to be filed against an interlocutory order by the Court of the Magistrate, the office has raised an objection as to how the Revision Petition is maintainable under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Cr.P.C' for brevity).

(2.) THE petitioner is the respondent in the pending petition under Section 125of the Cr.P.C. before the lower court. It is stated that the petitioner before the Trial Court has tendered evidence in support of her claim and at the stage of evidence of the present petitioner who is the respondent therein, an application in I.A.1 was filed before the Lower Court seeking to call for the entire records and documents regarding the registration of a memorandum of marriage of the petitioner with the respondent. The application was filed as on 7.4.2012. It transpires that the respondent had indicated that she would have no objection if the application is allowed and therefore, it is contended that the court below should have allowed the application. However, the court having rejected the same, the present petition is filed.

(3.) AS already pointed out, the court below having in its discretion rejected the application, it is for the petitioner to establish his defence with reference to other facts and circumstances. Since the admitted position is that the memorandum of marriage which is duly registered, merely records the event and is not proof of the event itself, which would require to be established by the respondent who is the petitioner before the Lower Court, she would stand or fall by the evidence that she has tendered. Therefore, no serious prejudice would be caused to the present petitioner if all the details pertaining to the registration are not made available before the Court. The Court shall weigh the contention as regards the age of the petitioner with reference to the date of marriage independently, which the petitioner can very well establish, by producing other material. In that view of the matter, there is no error of jurisdiction committed by the court below and the office has rightly raised the objection that a Revision Petition against an interlocutory order was not maintainable, in the face of which the present petition is disposed of without prejudice to the defence if any, of the petitioner.