JHARNA BERA Vs. SAMAR KUMAR ROY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By filing this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner seeks to quash/set aside the impugned order dated 17.04.2013 passed in Title Suit No. 08 of 2006 by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 6th Court, Alippre, South -24-Parganas by which the learned Trial Judge allowed the present opposite party/mother Smt. Bakul Roy to be substituted in place of her son, the deceased plaintiff Samar Kumar Roy. A brief resume of the relevant facts is that the plaintiff Samar Kumar Roy instituted the aforesaid suit for a decree of declaration that the defendant Smt. Jharna Bera (petitioner herein) is not his legally married wife and that she has no right to claim the plaintiff as her husband inasmuch as the alleged marriages between the plaintiff and the defendant are not legal, valid and tenable in law, for injunction and for other reliefs.

(2.) The case of the plaintiff is that the father of the defendant was a senior employee and he was a junior employee under the Directorate of Employment Exchange, Government of West Bengal. The father of the defendant taking that advantage prevailed undue influence upon the plaintiff and by blackmailing and coercion arranged a show of marriage of his daughter Jharna Bera with the plaintiff by registration. The alleged show of marriage was held on 18.02.2002 followed by marriage at Kalighat on 13.12.2002 to give social recognition. It has been alleged that neither of the so-called marriages was solemnized according to the provision of the Special Marriage Act nor by performing essential ceremonies of the Hindu Marriage Act and as such the said marriages are not tenable and valid in law. It has further been alleged that there was no consummation of the said show of marriage.

(3.) During pendency of the suit the plaintiff Samar Kumar Roy died on 10.10.2012. On 19.12.2012 Smt. Bakul Roy, mother and legal heir of the deceased plaintiff filed an application under Order 22 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for substitution which was allowed by the impugned order. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with such order the petitioner/wife has preferred the instant revision.