PRITI DEY (CHANDRA) Vs. SUBHASISH DEY AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revisional application under Sec. 401 read with Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short Cr.P.C.) has been directed challenging the judgment and order dated 30.08..2013 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Purulia in Criminal Appeal No. 22 of 2012 under Sec. 29 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (in short P.W.D.V. Act) setting aside an order dated 25.09.2012 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 3rd Court, Purulia in Miscellaneous Case No. 131 of 2012 under the provision of the P.W.D.V. Act.

(2.) Petitioner in this revisional application is a women and she has ventilated her grievance against a man who has been made opposite party No. 1.

(3.) Some admitted facts as transpire from the materials on record are that marriage was solemnised between petitioner and opposite patty No. 1 on 27.04.2008 and they lived together as married couple in the residence of opposite party No. 1 continuously for a long time and that out of their such living a son has born on 17.08.2010 at Purulia Sadar Hospital while the petitioner stayed in her father's house as she came there during her pregnancy. Thereafter, petitioner did not return to the house of opposite party No. 1. Petitioner and her child have been living in petitioner's father's house. On prayer of the opposite party No. 1 in a matrimonial suit being No. 27 of 2012/81 of 2011 learned Additional District Judge, 2nd Court, Bankura passed an ex parte decree on 23.04.2012 against the present petitioner declaring her marriage with the opposite party No. 1 is a nullity under Sec. 12(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 with effect from 23.04.2012. On 29.05.2012 petitioner filed Misc. Case No. 131 of 2012 against the opposite party No. 1 alleging domestic violence and seeking reliefs under the P.W.D.V. Act. Opposite party No. 1 appeared in that case on 4.09.2012. He challenged maintainability of petitioner's application under the P.W.D.V. Act in Misc. Case No. 131 of 2012. Hearing the point of maintainability learned Judicial Magistrate, 3rd Court, Purulia passed order dated 25.09.2012 rejecting the prayer of opposite party No. 1. Said order was challenged by opposite party No. 1 filing Criminal Appeal No. 22 of 2012. Said appeal was allowed in the impugned judgment dated 30.08.2013. It is also admitted fact that the opposite party No. 1 is a practicing advocate in Bankura Court.