K G GANGADHARAN Vs. T R PARVATHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - This is a petition under Sec. 482 of Cr1. PC, praying to call for the records in MC No. 38 of 1985 on the file of the Sub Division Judicial Magistrate, Sankari and to quash the proceedings.

(2.) The petitioner is the respondent (husband) in MC No. 38 of 1985 on the file of the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sankari and the respondent herein is the wife of the petitioner and she has filed the aforesaid MC No. 38 of 1985 claiming maintenance under Section 125 of Cr1. PC.

(3.) The petitioner has come forward stating that the marriage took place on 10th October, 1983 between himself and the respondent and after the marriage, he went to Bangalore, stayed there for three or four days and returned to Calcutta on or about 30th October, 1983. They lived together for a month or two with the petitioners father at No. 9-B, Pandapukar Road, Lajpatraj K Sarain, Calcutta. Thereafter the respondent left the matrimonial home and was staying with her parents. She was having serious ailments and she could not comply with the matrimonial obligations. He filed a petition for dissolution of the marriage on that ground as well as on other grounds in matrimonial Suit No. 520 of 1985 before the District Judge, Alipore, Calcutta. The respondent filed an application in that suit for alimony pendente lite and for costs of litigation under S. 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act to pay her a sum of Rs. 1,000 per mensem for her traveling expenses from Tamil Nadu to Calcutta and for her boarding and lodging at Calcutta for contesting the suit and for her maintenance and other expenses and Rs. 2,000 for defraying the interim expenses and costs of litigation. The learned Judge after hearing both sides, disallowed the monthly allowance, but ordered to pay Rs. 1,000 as costs of litigation of the matrimonial suit. Against the said order, the respondent has filed a revision before the Calcutta High Court and the High Court has remitted the matter back to the trial Court for fresh consideration and that is said to be pending. While so, the respondent has filed the maintenance petition in the Court of the Sub Division Judicial Magistrate, Sankari in MC No. 38 of 1985 claiming maintenance of Rs. 1,000 and the petitioner has filed a detailed counter, According to the petitioner, the respondent has no right to file the petition and ask for maintenance, when she has asked for maintenance in the civil proceedings. Hence, it has been prayed that the records have to be called for and the proceedings have to be quashed.