Akshay Kumar Mandal vs State of Jharkhand and Another

Dhrub Narayan Upadhyay, J.—This Cr.M.P. has been filed for quashing the order dated 25.7.2001 passed in Cr. Rev. No. 61 of 1996 by

the 1st Additional Session Judge, Dumka, whereby the order dated 30.3.1996 passed by the then SDJM, Dumka in Misc. Case No. 29 of 1994,

by which the learned SDJM has granted maintenance allowance to O.P. No. 2, Satyawati @ Putul Devi @ Rs. 200 per month from April, 1994

and Rs. 100 to her minor daughter, has been affirmed and the revision filed by the petitioner was dismissed. It is submitted that the O.P. No. 2 is

not the legally married wife of petitioner. In order to compel him to marry, case was filed against him and this case has also been lodged with false

allegation that Satyawati @ Putul Devi is his wife and she has delivered a female child out of the wedlock.

Counsel for the State as well as the O.P. No. 2 opposed the prayer.

I have gone through the impugned order dated 25.7.2001 passed in Cr. Rev. No. 61 of 1996 and order dated 30.3.1996 passed by learned

SDJM in Misc. Case No. 29 of 1994. In order to prove factum of marriage, the opposite party No. 2 has examined altogether 5 witnesses

including the Priest who had performed the marriage between the petitioner and the O.P. No. 2. Save and except denial, the petitioner has failed to

prove that no marriage between him and O.P. No. 2 has ever been solemnized. On this ground he has challenged the impugned order.

The Counsel appearing for the petitioner has failed to bring on record any declaratory suit in order to show that the O.P. No. 2 is not his legally

wedded wife. Furthermore, the learned Sessions Judge in the impugned order has elaborately discussed the evidence and other aspect of the case.

A poor lady has been running from post to pillar since 1994 for getting maintenance for surviving herself and her daughter, whereas the petitioner

dragged the litigation right from the Court, of learned SDJM to this Court.

I find no merit in this Cr.M.P. The same stands dismissed. The petitioner is directed to comply with the order dated 30.3.1996 passed by the

learned SDJM in Misc. Case No. 29 of 1994. All the interim stay granted in favour of the petitioner, stand vacated. The O.P. No. 2 shall be at

liberty to file appropriate petition before the Court concerned for getting arrear of maintenance from the petitioner. Return back the L.C.R. to the

Court concerned.