- (1.) Mr. Satpathi appears on behalf of the petitioner. In spite of service, none appears to represent the opposite party/Rajesh Khatik.
(2.) This revisional application is directed against an order and judgment dated 29th October 2009, passed in Case No. M-77 of 2007 under Section 125 Code of Criminal Procedure, wherein the prayer for maintenance of minor son was allowed but the prayer in respect of the petitioner, Rina Khatik, has been refused.
(3.) Factual background in brief is that the petitioner, Rina Khatik, got married with the opposite party, Rajesh Khatik, according to Hindu rites and customs on the 27th of January 2004 at Bowbazar, R.K. Deo Path, No. 1, Kinison Jute Mill, Line Quarter No. 13, P.S. Titagarh, District 24 Parganas (North). After marriage the petitioner and the opposite party lived together as husband and wife and as a result of their marriage the petitioner, Rina Khatik, gave birth to a male child. However, by the passage of time, the relation between the parties turned bitter. It is also alleged that the opposite party/husband used to demand money at the instance of the petitioner from her parents. It is further alleged that the petitioner was subjected to torture by the opposite party/husband and other members of his family. Petitioner, having no option, started living in her parental home along with her minor son. The opposite party/husband in spite of having sufficient means refused and neglected her to maintain. Therefore, she filed a petition, under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, before the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Barrackpore. It was subsequently transferred to the learned Judicial Magistrate, 5th Court, Barrackpore, North 24 Parganas for disposal. The Magistrate passed the impugned order refusing maintenance of the petitioner, Rina Khatik. The petitioner, challenging the impugned order, has preferred this revisional application.;