RADHA MADHAB RAJ Vs. KRISHNA GANGULY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revisional application under S.115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is directed against an order dated 30.4.85 passed by the learned District Judge, Murshidabad in Misc. Appeal No.66 of 1984 reversing the order dated 31.5.1984 passed by the learned Munsif, 2nd Court, Kandi in O.S. No.34 of 1983. The facts in so far as they are relevant for the purpose of this application may briefly be described as follows :-

(2.) Towards May 1981 opposite party Krishna Ganguly was residing with family of one Sunil Mukherjee, a local S.I. of Police at Kandi, Murshidabad. Krishna and the petitioner Radha Madhab Raj were known to each other from before. Krishna along with the members of Sunil Mukherjee's family and Radha Madhab Raj visited Nalhati at Nalhateswari Temple, According to the opposite party, she (Krishna Ganguly) was married to the petitioner on 19th of June, 1981 inside the famous temple at Tarapit according to Hindu rites and customs and the said marriage was registered in the office of Muslim Registrar of Marriage. Further according to Krishna, the two then spent a few days (about 7 days) by boarding on a local hotel where cohabitation also did take place. The girl's case is that since then Radha Madhab Raj was heard no more and that she was completely left alone and forsaken by her husband. The case of the petitioner Radha Madhab Raj is that although he had been to Nalhati at the request of the members of the family of Sunil Mukherjee, he was never married to Krishna Ganguly in the way as alleged and that no cohabitation did take place at all. His grievance is that the members of the family of Sunil Mukherjee got a piece of paper signed by hi by practicing fraud upon him and that he was merely a school boy at that time and minor too Be that as it may, the fact runs that Krishna filed an application for maintenance under S 125 Cr. P C on 28the of August 1981 and the same was registered as Misc Case No. 186 of 1981. The petitioner thereafter filed a civil Suit in the 2nd Court of Munsif at Kanji praying inter alias for a declaration that Krishna was never hiss married wife and hat she was therefore not entitled o any maintenance from him Before the learned Munsif Radha Madhab Raj prayed for an order of temporary injunction restraining Krishana from proceeding with he said Misc Case No 186 of 1981 Upon hearing both the parties, the learned Munsif was order Krishna moved the learned District Judge, Murshidabad. By his order dated 30.4.85 the learned District judge, Murshidabad. By his order dated 30.4.85 the learned District Judge set aside the said order of the learned Munsif . Being aggrieved there by Radha Madhab has come up in revision before us.

(3.) Sri Saktinath Mukherjee, learned advocate appearing for he petitioner has invited our attention to some features of the case, which he termed as "peculiar". Radha Madhab is very rich man's son. At the relevant time he was a mere school boy. Both the parties are admittedly Hindus. According to Mr. Mukherjee it is strange that their alleged marriage was solemnized and registered in the office of the Muslim Registrar of Marriage According to Mr. Mukherjee it is equally strange that barely two months and a week after their alleged marriage, Krishna would rush to the Criminal Court demanding maintenance per month. No less striking is the fact that the parents of boy were conspicuous by their absence on the date of marriage. Mr. Mukherjee has therefore contended that the parties were never married to each other. Mr. Mukherjee has drawn our attention to the affidavit-in-reply filed by Radha Madhab Raj's father (Sri Avoy Kumar Raj). It has been adumbrated inter alia in that affidavit-in-reply that "the brother-in-law of the opposite party S.I. of Police who was posted at Kandi managed the entire matter". Mr. Mukherjee has summed up his argument by concluding that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case it will be just and proper to pass an order of injunction thereby restraining Krishna from proceeding with the maintenance proceeding so that his client can be heard in support of his grievance as placed in the plaint of civil suit concerned.