NIRMAL BHOWMIK Vs. SAFALA DAS AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revisional application has arisen out of the order dated July 29, 2006, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Alipurduar, District - Jalpaiguri in Criminal Revision No. 12 of 2006 thereby affirming the order of maintenance dated March 28, 2006 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Alipurduar in M.R. Case No. 81 of 2003.The husband/petitioner has filed this revisional application against his wife/O.P. NO. 1 and the state of West Bengal for setting aside the order passed by the learned Additional District Judge.

(2.) The wife/opposite party No. 1 filed one case under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for her maintenance at the rate of Rs. 1,500/- per month, stating, inter alia, that the marriage between her and her husband, petitioner herein, was solemnised on June 15, 2003. It was also registered on that very day under the Special Marriage Act. After marriage, they lived together in the house of the husband but the members of his family including himself inflicted torture upon her demanding dowry. She was not provided with enough food. Then, on September 9, 2003 the wife was taken to an unknown house and she was forced to sign on some blank papers at the point of threat and then she was driven out of the house of the husband. Since then, she has been living at the house of her brother in the same village. She has no source of income. On the other hand, the husband earns Rs. 15,000/- per month and so she has claimed maintenance at the rate of Rs. 1,500/- per month from her husband.

(3.) The husband contested the said maintenance case by filing a written objection challenging the maintainability of the case for want of cause of action. He denied that he was ever married to the opposite party No. 1 at all. They never lived together as husband and wife. The wife was minor at the time of so-called marriage. In fact, the wife was a neighbour residing in the house of her elder sister and there were visiting terms between the two families and they visited the house of the other as a neighbour. When the family of the wife demanded that the husband/petitioner should marry her the father of the husband/petitioner refused stating that the husband had no income, as claimed. The wife and her men came to the house of the husband on June 15, 2003 and they took the husband forcibly and then the marriage was held between the two under threat. Thereafter they took the wife to the house of the husband and left her thereat. After three days, the wife left the house of her husband and went to her brother's house in the same village. Even, at the time of departure, the men of the wife took Rs. 1,500/- from the father of the husband as charges for the vehicle. For that reason, one case was lodged against those persons and that is still pending.