(1.) THIS revisional application has been filed under Sections 397, 401 and 482 of the Cr. PC against the order dated 12.01.2005 passed by the ld. Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sealdah in Case No. M -89 of 2004 wherein he allowed the maintenance case, filed under Section 125 Cr. PC, exparte, by directing the petitioner to pay Rs. 2,500/ - per month to the opposite party towards her maintenance with effect from the date of the order.
(2.) CASE of the petitioner is that he is a member of the Rajya Sabha since April, 1994. On 16.07.2004, the opposite party filed an application under Section 125 of the Cr. PC before the ld. Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sealdah claiming maintenance @ Rs. 5,000/ - per month for herself on the allegation that her marriage with the petitioner took place on 27.08.2003 as per Hindu rites at Kalighat Temple. She has stated in the petition that it was her second marriage. Her first marriage took place in the year 1981 with one Mahadeb Sarkar and out of the said wedlock a son and a daughter were born. She left her first matrimonial house along with children in the year 1993 and started living in her father's house at Madhyamgram. In the later part of the year 1996, the petitioner appointed her to look after his mother. Since then, she was living in the house of the petitioner at Manicktala Main Road. During this time, it has been alleged in the petition, the O.P. and the petitioner developed intimate relationship. As such, at the insistence of the petitioner, the opposite party filed suit for divorce against her first husband and obtained decree on 06.06.2003. The O.P. has further alleged in the said petition filed under Section 125 of the Cr. PC, that she conceived twice at the instance of the petitioner but she was compelled to undertake abortions in a private nursing home in the month of December, 2000 and August, 2001. After obtaining the decree of divorce, the opposite party and the petitioner got themselves married at Kalighat Kali Temple on 27.08.2003. Since then, they started living in the said Manicktala house as husband and wife. Thereafter the present petitioner started living at Delhi and got involved with another woman there. It has further been alleged that the petitioner neglected to maintain the opposite party and ousted her from the said Manicktala house with the help of antisocial elements. The O.P. has further alleged in the said petition that the petitioner is earning about Rs. 25,000/ - per month and is getting other facilities as a member of the Parliament. On the other hand, the O.P. has claimed that she has no income of her own and she is unable to maintain herself. As such, she filed the petition under Section 125 Cr. PC against the petitioner praying for maintenance. On the basis of that, on 16.07.2004 the ld. Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sealdah directed issuance of notice upon the petitioner asking him to show cause by 03.09.2004 thereafter on 03.09.2004 the ld. Magistrate fixed 04.10.2004 for appearance and further order observing that the A/D card was returned after service. The petitioner has claimed that no notice/summon was ever served upon him. On 12.01.2005 the ld. Magistrate recorded statement of the O.P. and thereafter on the same day ld. Magistrate was pleased to pass ex parts order allowing the petition, filed by the O.P. under Section 125 of the Cr. PC, and directed the petitioner to pay Rs. 2,500/ - per month in favour of the O.P. towards her maintenance.
(3.) THE O.P. has contested the application and the ld. Advocate for the opposite party submitted that notice was duly served upon the petitioner and as in spite of service of the notice, the petitioner did not appear before the Court, so there was no other alternative for the Court then to dispose of the petition filed under Section 125 of the Cr. PC, ex parte. According to him, the ld. Magistrate was perfectly justified in passing the impugned order by directing the petitioner to pay Rs. 2,500/ - per month to the opposite party towards her maintenance and as such he submits that the revisional application should be rejected.