SHIKHA MAJUMDAR Vs. ANUTOSH MAJUMDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this revision petition is to the order dated 01.07.2013 passed by the First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg, in a Criminal M.J.C. No.62/2012 wherein the maintenance claimed by the applicant Smt. Shikha Majumdar was reused by the Family Court. By the said order, the maintenance to the daughter Anushka Majumdar was granted of Rs.2,000/- per month. The refusal to grant maintenance to the applicant Smt. Shikha Majumdar was on the ground that she was not the legally wedded wife of non-applicant Anutosh Majumdar and the finding of such order is under challenge before this Court.

(2.) Ms. Fouzia Mirza, learned counsel vehemently attacked the findings on the ground that the learned Court below while exercising the power under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. exceeded it's jurisdiction and further was denuded to go into the legality of the marriage in the teeth of the evidence, which was existing. She would submit that in the instant case the marriage was solemnized in the year 2003 and out of wedlock a daughter was born in the year 2004. It is further contended that the relation between theparties became strained from the year 2011 onwards which led to report and counter report and subsequently when the applicant being the wife was deserted, an application was filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. for maintenance before the Family Court. The Family Court framed an issue that whether the applicant No.1 Smt. Shikha was a legally wedded wife of applicant and on that issue after marshaling the evidence, the Court has given a finding that since the applicant Shikha Majumdar belonged to Muslim religion, therefore, the marriage performed with Anutosh Majumdar cannot be said to be a legal marriage. On that premises the learned Court had denied the status of the applicant to be wife of the respondent.

(3.) Referring to the document placed in this revision, she would submit that the relation started to become strained that of applicant with her husband i.e. respondent in the year 2011-12 which led to report vide Ex.AC/1 wherein after the initial report a compromise was arrived at between the parties by Ex.AC/4 wherein the non-applicant respondent admitted the fact that the applicant No.1 is legally wedded wife. She therefore submits that in view of such admission, there was no occasion for the Court to go into the validity of the marriage for the purpose of determining the compensation payable under Section 125 of Cr.P.C.