MD HASIB Vs. SABINA KHATUN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. S. Dutta, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner and mr. S. Banerjee, learned Advocate appearing for the O. P. No. 1.

(2.) MR. Dutta's client was an opposite party in a case of maintenance under Section 125, Cr. P. C. initiated by the client of Mr. S. Banerjee. It is submitted by Mr. Dutta, learned Advocate that his client's case is that the petitioner has pronounced "talaq" against the wife and no more there is any existence of marital relationship between the parties. It is submitted that a suit was instituted before the learned Civil Court by the petitipner praying for declaration that the petitioner is no longer the husband of the opposite party and in connection with the said civil suit, an Advocate's letter was produced as one of the documents on behalf of the plaintiff/petitioner. The stage was reached for cross-examination of the opposite party and the petitioner moved an application before the learned Magistrate praying for calling for the record of suit No. 20 of 2006 now pending before the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, 2nd Court, Malda. Though the order dated 25. 9. 08 has been said to be the impugned order, I don't think that could really be the impugned order. The impugned order if at all is there any may be the order dated 4. 11. 08, The learned Magistrate by the order dated 4. 11. 08 allowed the prayer for adjournment of the petitioner so as to facilitate him to file certified copy of the required document and fix a date for cross-examination of P. W. 1. It is submitted that without disposing of the application wherein the prayer was made for calling for the record of the civil suit, the learned Magistrate directed the petitioner to file the certified copy of the documents.

(3.) I have heard Mr. S. Banerjee, learned Advocate appearing for the opposite party No. 1 who supports the magisterial order submitting that the' learned Magistrate committed no illegality in making such direction.