GHISA LAL Vs. CIVIL JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The aforesaid misc. petition has been Tiled challenging the order dated 3.3.2006, passed by the learned Civil Judge (J.D.) & Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Kekri, District Ajmer, whereby the learned Magistrate has rejected the F.R. No. 1/2005 and has taken cognizance of offences under Sections 498A, 406, 120B & 494 IPC against the petitioner. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner, Ghisa Lal was married to the respondent No. 2, Rameshwari in childhood. It appears that the marriage was never consummated and the petitioner-husband and the respondent-wife never lived together. However, the petitioner-husband in order to nullify the marriage, filed an application under the Hindu Marriage Act, which was decreed by the District Judge, Ajmer on 22.12.1984. After obtaining the decree of divorce, the petitioner married another lady. It has been informed to this Court that the decree of divorce was never challenged. Thereafter, the respondent No. 2 filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for seeking maintenance on 16.2.2001. The application was allowed by the Family Court on 23.10.2002 and a sum of Rs. 700/- per month was directed to be paid to the respondent No. 2 as maintenance. It appears that the petitioner-husband came to know from some sources that the respondent No. 2 wife was living in adultery. On which, he started taking some steps to collect the evidence in this regard. When the respondent No. 2 came to know about this attempt of the petitioner, then she filed a complaint in the court of Judicial Magistrate (First Class) Kekri, Ajmer on 24.5.2004 which was forwarded to the Police for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. In the complaint, it has been alleged that the complainant was married to the petitioner 25 years prior to the filing of the FIR. She has alleged that after the ceremony of 'muklawa' she stated living with the petitioner in the village Khwas. It has been alleged that as she was illiterate and her in-law's used to inflict cruelty upon her. It has also been alleged that the petitioner-husband used to taunt her that she was of a dark complexion and since he was an employee in the Bank, he would leave her and marry a beautiful woman. Ultimately, she has alleged that she was beaten and her ornaments were taken away and she was turned out of the house. It is further alleged that the petitioner-husband contracted marriage with another woman without divorcing her and no maintenance was being paid by the petitioner to her. She has further alleged that when the petitioner's father expired in the year 2003, the complainant and her family members went to the house of the petitioner for paying condolence. But they were turned out of the house.

(2.) During the course of investigation of the said report, the Police investigated the matter thoroughly and all the evidence, regarding the marriage between the parties never having been consummated, regarding a customary divorce having been arrived at by making a payment of Rs. 50,000/- 15 to 16 years prior to the filing of the FIR and ultimately the decree of the divorce having been granted by the competent court was collected and the Police gave a Final report in the matter. The notices of the final report were issued to the complainant-respondent No. 2 and the complainant-respondent No. 2 submitted a protest petition and got examined herself and her witnesses in support of the protest. The learned Magistrate by the impugned order dated 3.3.2006 proceeded to take cognizance for the offences under Sections 498A, 406 and 494 IPC against the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the order impugned dated 3.3.2006, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking quashing of the impugned order and all subsequent proceedings thereto sought to be taken against him.

(3.) This Court by order dated 4.3.2008 issued notices to the respondent No. 2. The notices were duly served and the power was filed on her behalf. But it is noticed from the order-sheet dated 25.7.2011 that nobody appeared on behalf of the respondent No. 2. The matter was taken up on 10.8.2011 and on that date also nobody appeared on behalf of the respondent No. 2 on which the petitioner was heard finally.