RAM PANDEY Vs. RITA PANDEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An order passed on 10.08.2011 by the Ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate, South 24 Paraganas, Alipore has been challenged by the revisionist/petitioner. It appears that in terms of the impugned order the Ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore was pleased to dismiss and reject the application filed under Sec. 127 Cr.P.C. by the petitioner Ram Pandey registered as Misc. Case No. 284/2010.

(2.) Mr. Pratik Bhattacharya, the Ld. Advocate appearing for the revisionist/petitioner argued that the opposite party No. 1 Rita Das claiming herself to be his wife filed an application under Sec. 125 Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance for herself and her minor son and in Misc. Case No. 350/1999 an ex parte order of maintenance was passed without any service of notice upon him and Rita Das put the award of maintenance in Misc. Ex. Case No. 6/2005, Misc. Exe. No. 45/2007 and Misc. Exe. Case No. 14/2009 but the Ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate while disposing of the application under Sec. 127 Cr.P.C. squarely failed to consider that the opposite party No. 1 cannot be said to be his wife inasmuch as prior to her marriage with him (the revisionist petitioner) she was earlier married twice. It was argued that the revisionist/petitioner believed himself to be the husband of the opposite party No. 1 but when subsequently he came to know that Rita was married earlier with other persons she cannot be allowed to claim maintenance either for herself or for her son as her purported marriage with him is a nullity. In support of his contention the Ld. Advocate argued that on behalf of the revisionist/petitioner certified Xerox copies of plaints in Mat. Suit No. 1232/1995 brought by one Sadhan Das against the present opposite party No. 1 Rita Das and of Mat. Suit No. 556/1996 instituted by one Khokan Roy against her (opposite party No. 1), as will be found from page 95 onwards annexed with the revisional application along with C.R.R. 1451/2009 were filed before the Ld. Magistrate. It was strenuously argued that copies of plaint being public document the content thereof ought to have been read as evidence in the proceedings under Sec. 127 Cr.P.C.

(3.) To the query of this Court whether the revisionist/petitioner on his behalf examined either of those supposed plaintiffs/petitioners in the matrimonial suits as witness on his behalf the Ld. Advocate argued that it was incumbent upon the Ld. Magistrate to summon those persons and it was not the responsibility of the revisionist/petitioner because by filing copies of plaints he was able to prove his contention.