BINOD KUMAR DALMIA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that admittedly the petitioner had married to Manju Devi but divoice arose between the couple and the petitioner filed a title suit bearing Title Suit No 3/81 in the court of District Judge, Patna which was heard ex-parte and decreed on 25-6-1982. Thereafter, Manju Devi filed a title suit bearing Title Suit No. 38 of 1983 in the court of Munsif-1 Patna for setting aside the said decree but the suit was dismissed by the Munsif on 3-1-1984 for default. Thereafter nothing was done by Manju Devi.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that as per the decree in matrimonial case the marriage got dissolved on 25-6-1982 itself. Thereafter Gopal Prasad Agrawal, brother of Man u Devi, (Opposite Party No 2) filed a case under Sections 3 and 5 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the petitioner bearing Barahia P. S. Case No. 61/83 dated 22-4-1983 and the cognizance was taken therein Thereafter, the petitioner went up in Crimnal Revision before the 1st Additional District and Sessions Judge, Munger in Criminal Revision No. 91/84 and the same was dismissed.

(3.) Mr Sharma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, invoking inherent power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has submitted that with passing of the divorce decree the relationship between husband and wife got snapped on that date and Manju Devi was no longer wife of the petitioner thereafter. The present case was filed on 22-4-1983 when Manju Devi was not wife of the petitioner. So, there was no case of any demand of dowry at all. This fact was lost sight of the court below. Since there was no relationship of husband and wife the impugned orders passed by the Munsif or by the Additional Sessions Judge have no legs to stand.