SRI NARAYAN MANNA Vs. SRI SUDARSHAN MANNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revisional application under Sec. 482 read with Sec. 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short Cr.P.C.) has been filed by petitioner Narayan Manna challenging an order dated 29.09.2014 granting interim maintenance allowance passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Court, Tamluk, Purba Medinipur in Misc. Case No. 423 of 2011 under Sec. 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The opposite party is the father of the petitioner.

(2.) Inter alia, the petitioner contended that his father married for the second time with one Rinku Parua in the year 2003 during life time of petitioner's mother Manju Rani Manna and the opposite party has been living with his second wife Rinku Parua separately at Village - Jhinuk Khali under P.S. Bhupatinagar. The petitioner has been living at village-Khagda under P.S. Chandipur with his mother. The petitioner has claimed himself as an unemployed person and his monthly income is Rs.2000.00 as a day labour and the opposite party earns Rs.30,000.00 per month from his business. Petitioner has further contended that the opposite party sold out his ancestral property and obtained lump sum money as sale-proceeds. Petitioner's mother got an order against the opposite party for payment of her maintenance allowance of Rs.1,500.00 per month under Sec. 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as per order of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Court, Tamluk but the opposite party did not pay that maintenance allowance to petitioner's mother. At the time of hearing learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that this is not at all a fit case for granting interim maintenance allowance in favour of the opposite party against the petitioner. On the other hand, learned advocate appearing for the opposite party submitted that learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Court, Tamluk has rightly passed the impugned order granting interim maintenance allowance of Rs.1,500.00 per month for the opposite party herein payable by the present petitioner.

(3.) Having gone through the revisional application, certified copy of the impugned order and the affidavit in opposition it appears to me that the impugned order granting interim maintenance allowance has been passed by learned Judicial Magistrate within his jurisdiction in Misc. Case No. 423 of 2011 under Sec. 125, Crimial P.C. From the revisional application and the affidavit in reply the admitted position appears to me that the opposite party illegally married for the second time during life time of his wife Manju Rani Manna. Petitioner has alleged that the opposite party has sufficient means to maintain himself but the opposite party denies it. For determining that question recording of evidence is necessary. At this stage, I do not find sufficient materials on record to hold that there is an illegality in passing the impugned order. The question whether the opposite party has sufficient means to maintain himself or not shall be decided by the learned Magistrate after recording evidence in final hearing. Considering the nature and circumstances of the case I am not satisfied to allow the revisional application or to set aside the impugned order. However, I am convinced that expeditious disposal of Misc. Case No. 423 of 2011 is essential.