SARASWATI MAITY @ SARASWATI JANA Vs. GOUTAM MAITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An absolutely unmeritorious application has been carried to this Court and there is a sheer wastage of time.

(2.) The grievance of the petitioner is such that the learned Magistrate failed to consider the important aspect that strict proof of marriage is not required in a case of Section 125 Cr. P.C., 1973 He also contended that the present position is such that it has to be considered in a broad spectrum and social justice had to be rendered in the form of 'social context justice'. He has referred to two decisions reported in 1987 Cr.L.J. 688 in the case of Gabriel Antony v. Thressya Gracy and anr. I have considered the decision and it appears to me that the factual aspect of that case is just opposite to the present one. In that case marriage was held, but it was allegedly by practicing fraud. So the Hon'ble Kerala High Court disposed of the same in that light. He also referred another decision reported in (2014) 1 SCC 188 in the case of Badshah v. Urmila Badshal Godse and anr. He has particularly drawn my attention to the paragraphs 13 and 14 of the said decision. Factual aspect of that case is completely different to the case in hand. In that case marriage was there and divorce was obtained. But in that case there is no such reflection. On the contrary, the petitioner/wife is the former wife of another person and, on dock, she admitted that her first husband is still alive. She has also admitted that she was a maid servant in her house although, she stated that she has been residing there for a considerable period. If a maid servant resides in a house for four years or more that does not mean that there was any live-in relationship by and between the parties. It is the specific case of the petitioner that after getting married with the present opposite party at Kalighat Temple, they had been to the house of one Kaju Sardar. P.W. 2 categorically stated that he had arranged a rented accommodation in the house of Kaju Sardar. Significantly enough rather curiously enough, that the petitioner did not dare to produce that landlord to say that whether they were residing there as husband and wife or not.

(3.) On perusal of the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial Court I am of the view that he did not commit any mistake rather he has taken all the pains to pass a very good and logical judgment.