BALASAHEB RAGHUNATH KATAD Vs. GAYABAI BALASAHEB KATAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners are assailing correctness, propriety and legality of the order by which the learned Magistrate issued the process against the petitioners for the offences punishable under provisions of sections 494 and 109 of Indian Penal Code.

(2.) MISS Smita Mane submitted that the learned Magistrate should not have issued the process in view of provisions of section 7 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as Hindu Marriage Act for convenience), because, according to section 7, unless all necessary ceremonies are performed, there would not be a legal marriage between a hindu man and a Hindu woman. She pointed out that the necessary allegations are lacking in the complaint. Miss Smita Mane submitted that on the contrary, the averments made in the complaint are to the effect that complainant after hearing Mangalastaka and Slokas chanted, went to Kushavarta and saw gathering of persons and inferred that her husband was marrying another woman. In addition to that she submitted that the complaint was filed in the year 1988 and even after 10 years, there was no progress in the hearing of the said prosecution. In fact, the learned Magistrate should have discharged the accused, keeping in view the observations made by the Supreme Court in Rajdeo Sharmas case. Thus, she prayed that a writ of certiorari in view of the provisions of Article 226 of Constitution of India and the appropriate order in view of exercise of the jurisdiction of this court indicated by section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as Code for convenience) be issued.

(3.) SHRI Saste vehemently opposed and submitted that the observations made by Supreme Court in Rajdeo Sharmas case have been clarified by later judgment and therefore, the action taken by the learned Magistrate in deciding to continue a prosecution was correct, proper and legal.