Ct. no. 32
C.R.R. 652 of 2020
Saurav Sarkar @ Pappu.
Ms. Mousumi Bhowal
Mr. Soumyadeep Mukherjee
Ms. Taniya Sarkar …for the petitioner
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that
in a proceeding under Sections 313,406,498A and 34 of Indian Penal Code the
petitioner/husband was acquitted. It was held by the learned Trial Judge that
the present opposite party could not prove the marriage between the two.
According to her, this order was not even challenged before the learned appellate
Court. Relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Samir Mandal Vs.
State of Bihar Another reported in (2001) 10 Supreme Court Cases 50, it is
submitted that since the opposite party could not prove the existence of marriage
between the two, she was not entitled to any maintenance allowance under
Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Accordingly, the learned Trial
Court erred in dismissing the petitioner’s application praying for dismissal of the
proceedings under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The petitioner is directed to serve copy of this application and a notice
intimating about the next date of hearing upon the opposite party by Speed Post
with acknowledgement due within a week and file affidavit-of-service to that
effect on the next date of hearing.
Let this matter appear two weeks hence under the heading “contested
Urgent certified photostat copy of this judgement, if applied for, be given
to the parties as expeditiously as possible on compliance of all necessary
(Jay Sengupta, J.)