ASIM KUMAR MONDAL, J. - (1.) THIS is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973. The petitioner Susanta Biswas has challenged the legality and maintainability of a proceeding being No.M.R. Case No.74 (IV) 11 under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, filed by the respondent pampa Mondal, now pending before the Ld. Additional Chief judicial Magistrate, Tehatta, Nadia.
(2.) THE case of the petitioner i.e. the respondent filed an application before Ld. Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tehatta, Nadia under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Claiming herself legally married wife of petitioner Susanta Biswas and has claimed maintenance of Rupees three thousand per month for herself being a distress lady having no source of income. The Ld. Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Tehatta, Nadia passed an order directing the present petitioner to pay Rupees one thousand per month as interim maintenance to the respondent Pampa Mondal. In the said proceeding the petitioner Susanta Biswas appeared and filed a written objection to the claim of respondent Pampa Mondal. Mr. Satarup Purkayastha appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that Ld. Magistrate had erred in law by admitting the application in respect of maintenance without considering the fact that the Marriage Registrar, holding jurisdiction under the Tehatta Police Station have clearly stated that the petitioner and the respondent though gave notice under special marriage Act but they had never marriage and thus question of staying in the matrimonial house of the petitioner is absurd. It is clear from the documents produced on behalf of the petitioner that there was no marriage on the date mention in the application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 and the application is a false one. Mr. Purkayasta submits that the Marriage Registrar as clearly stated that there was no marriage solemnised under the special marriage Act though for which a notice was given by the parties. The report of marriage Registrar was obtained under the provisions of the right to information act. He claims that the said report issued by a public officer, should have been treated as a public document.
(3.) MR . Purkayastha thus prays for quashing of the proceeding initiated by the respondent Pampa Mondal under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973.;