HUDING KURI HANSDA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE judgment of the Court was as follows:-

(2.) IN the background of this revision the fact in a nutshell is that the petitioner got married with the Opposite Party No. 2 on 5.7.1997 and they lived as husband and wife. The Opposite Party No. 2 took steps to incorporate the name of the petitioner in the voter list of Rampurhat Constituency. The Election Commission of India issued a voter identity card in favour of the petitioner by mentioning that Sanatan Tudu @ Jagannath Tudu is the husband of the petitioner. Both the names of the petitioner and the husband were enlisted in voter list of Part No. 291 at village Sulanga under Rampurhat Constituency. After some days, the Opposite Party forcefully caused the petitioner to miscary the baby and subsequently repeated the same twice. After 4/5 years, on 2nd Baishakh 1416 B.S., the petitioner was driven out by the Opposite Party No. 2 after unbearable torture unleashed by the husband. Since then, the petitioner has been residing with her widow mother. The Opposite Party never paid any maintenance to her. He has landed property and a stone quarry and also the house of tin shed. His monthly income is Rs. 25,000/- approximately. The petitioner filed a case under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in Misc. Case No. 391 of 2009 before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Court, Rampurhat. The Opposite Party contested the application by filing a written objection. He disputed the validity of the marriage because according to him, he married another person at a village Parkandi and it is alleged that the Opposite Party No. 2 had no relation with the petitioner.

(3.) CHALLENGING the order dated 18.12.2010, the Opposite Party No. 2 preferred criminal revision in CRR No. 5 of 2011. The said application was disposed of on 21.7.2011 by setting aside the order dated 18.12.2010 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Court, Rampurhat.