(1.) THE petitioner instituted a suit, in the Court of the learned District Judge at Barasat, 24 Parganas (N), praying for a decree declaring the marriage between him and the defendant (opposite party herein) as nullity under Section 24 read with Section 4(a) of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 (hereafter the SM Act). It was registered as Matrimonial Suit No. 1807 of 2006 and is pending for decision now before the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No. 2, Barrackpore, 24 Parganas (N).
(2.) IT is the plaint case that marriage of the petitioner with the opposite party was registered under the provisions of the SM Act on August 11, 1995 and that prior thereto, the opposite party while representing to the petitioner that she is virgin/unmarried suppressed the fact of her subsisting marriage with one Ranjit Roy (hereafter Ranjit). The petitioner claimed that her marriage with the opposite party is void ab initio since she had a spouse living on the date of registration of marriage and, accordingly, prayed for relief as noted above.
(3.) THE learned judge heard the parties. By order dated August 7, 2010, he allowed the application under Section 36 of the Act. According to him, whether or not the marriage of the opposite party with Ranjit was subsisting at the time marriage between the petitioner and the opposite party was registered is a question touching the merits of the matter and keeping in mind the settled law that issues which touch the merit of the suit should be avoided while dealing with an interlocutory matter, it was held that the point raised by the petitioner could not be decided at that stage and ought to be reserved for a decision at the stage of trial. A finding was also recorded that the opposite party has no source of earning and that marriage between the petitioner and the opposite party being an admitted fact, she was entitled to alimony pendente lite. THE petitioner was, accordingly, directed to pay Rs.5,000/- per month from the date of filing of the suit, month by month, and December 8, 2010 was fixed for peremptory hearing. This order is the subject matter of the challenge in the present revisional application under Article 227 of the Constitution.