LAXMI MONDAL Vs. SANATAN MONDAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has arisen out of the order dated June 1, 2009 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Second Court, Diamond Harbour in connection with Criminal Motion No.75 of 2008 arising out of the order dated March 5, 2008 passed the learned Judicial Magistrate, Third Court, Diamond Harbour in Misc. Case No.330 of 2006 allowing the maintenance in favour of the opposite party.

(2.) The wife/petitioner filed the application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure claiming maintenance for herself and her child against the opposite party. Upon consideration of evidence of both the sides, the learned Judicial Magistrate allowed the application granting maintenance at the rate of Rs.700/- per month for the wife and Rs.500/- per month for the child with effect from the date of order. The husband/opposite party preferred a revisional application which was allowed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Second Court, Diamond Harbour, by the order impugned. Now the grievance of the petitioner is that though the marriage between the two is an admitted fact learned Additional District & Sessions Judge allowed the revisional application on the ground that previously the wife/petitioner was married to one Monoranjan Jatua and that marriage was dissolved by an affidavit which was filed before the learned Trial Judge.

(3.) The learned Advocate for the petitioner has contended that the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge has totally misdirected himself in considering the affidavit which has no connection with the Misc. Case under reference and the so-called affidavit is totally inadmissible in respect of the matter in dispute to the parties. So the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge has committed gross irregularity in taking into account of the said exhibit.