Judgment

Arijit Pasayat, J.—Leave granted.

2. A brief reference to the factual position would suffice because essentially the dispute has to be adjudicated with reference to scope and ambit of Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the ‘Code’).

3. The case at hand according to appellant is a classic example of the inadequacies of law in protecting a woman who unwittingly entered into relationships with a married man.

4. Factual position as projected by the appellant is as follows:—

Appellant claims that she was married to respondent No. 2 some time in 1994 according to the customary rites and rituals of their caste. Though initially, the respondent No. 2 treated her nicely, thereafter he started ill-­treating her and she was subjected to mental and physi­cal torture. On enquiry about the reason for such a sudden change in his behaviour, the appellant came to know that respondent No. 2 had developed illicit relationship with a lady named Veenaben. During the period the appellant stayed with the respondent, she became pregnant and subsequently, a child was born. As respondent No. 2 neglected the appellant and the child born, an application in terms of Section 1