- (1.) This revisional application under Section 401 read with Section 482 in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been filed challenging the judgment and order dated 10.06.2009 passed by Ld. Judicial Magistrate, 3rd Court, Krishnagor, Nadia in miscellaneous case number 1234 (IV) of 2000. Smt. Tripti Haldar wife of Panchu Gopal Haldar filed the present revisional application against her husband Panchu Gopal Haldar/opposite party challenging the rejection order of maintenance under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
(2.) The case of the petitioner/wife is that in the last week of Jaistha 1406 B.S. she got married to the opposite party according to Hindu rites and customs. Petitioner started to live with her husband at matrimonial home and during her stay there, the opposite party and his family members were pressing her for bringing money from her father. On the said issue petitioner was subjected to mental and physical torture. In the mean time petitioner became pregnant and she was kept in her parents house. The opposite party for the reasons best known to him did not provide any sort of maintenance while the petitioner was at her parents house. Finding no other alternative petitioner initiated the proceeding for maintenance under Section 125 Criminal Procedure Code. The opposite party did not take her back to her in-laws house in spite of repeated request. On enquiry, petitioner came to know that the opposite party again got married with one Chabi Haldar. The petitioner has not sufficient income to maintain herself as well as her minor daughter. She claimed maintenance for herself and her minor daughter at the rate of Rupees one thousand five hundred each per month.
(3.) Opposite party filed a written objection denying and disputing the case of the petitioner. He stated that he never married petitioner and he is not a father of the child of the petitioner. Opposite party claimed that he duly marriage one Chabi Haldar and in their wedlock a male child was born. The opposite party further states that there was no marriage in between the petitioner and himself and as such question of making payment for maintenance does not rise.;