CHAMPARANI MAJUMDAR Vs. MRINAL KANTI MAJUMDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Rule was issued on an application made under Sec. 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The wife is the petitioner and she claims that this court should lodge a complaint as against her husband for having committed an offence referred to in clause (b) of sub-section 1 of Sec. 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It will be necessary to refer I to the facts in brief.

(2.) A matrimonial suit was instituted by the wife as against the husband. In that suit, she filed an application under Sec. 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 claiming maintenance pendente lite and litigation costs. This application was contested by the husband who pleaded unchastity on the part of the wife disentitling her to claim any maintenance. Husband claimed that the wife had been in love with a young man named Mrinal Dey and was promise-bound to marry him after passing the Matriculation examination and that they were subsequently married and lived as husband and wife disowning the marriage with him altogether. The husband also contested the amount claimed by way of maintenance and litigation costs.

(3.) That application was heard on evidence and in disposing the same the learned judge in the trial court overruled the claim of the husband that the wife was not entitled to have any maintenance on the ground of unchastity. Learned judge found that the appellant was getting a sum of Rs. 280.00 per month as a teacher and he, therefore, allowed maintenance pendente lite with effect from March 1973, at the rate of Rs. 65.00 per month and further directed payment of Rs. 60.00 to her as litigation cost.