S LOUIS RAJ ACCUSED Vs. ROSLYN L RAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE validity of the order of the Chief Judicial magistrate, Madurai dated 29-4-1980 in directing restoration of C. C. No. 5 of 1980 by giving a fresh number, is questioned in the above petition

(2.) THE facts of the case are as follows :- THE wife, who is the respondent herein, filed a complaint against the petitioner-husband under section 494, I. P. C. THE respondent-wife is employed as an Assistant in the Madurai Corporation. According to her, the petitioner is her husband. Since the husband has failed to maintain her and since the husband has married another woman. while her marriage is subsisting, the above petition has been filed by the wife. THE complainant was examined on a sworn statement and thereafter the complaint was taken on file. Besides the complainant, who has been examined as P. W. 1, P. W. 2 has also been examined to support her case and thereafter the case was posted to 20-3-1980. On 20-3-1980, when the case was called, the complainant-wife was not present. THErefore, C. C. No. 5 of 1980 was dismissed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate and the accused/husband was discharged under Section 249, Cr. P. C. THEreafter, the wife filed Crl. M. P. No. 348 of 1980 in C. C. No. 5 of 1980 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate to set aside the order of discharge and prayed that the case may be restored and taken up on file and proceeded with