The pendency of a civil proceeding does not justify denying maintenance allowance to the neglected wife under Section 125 of the Code.

JUDGMENT

Jay Sengupta, J. - This is an application challenging an order dated 02.11.2019 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kalna, Purba Bardhaman in Misc. Case No.35 of 2019 in a proceeding under Section 125 of the Code.

2. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits as follows. On 06.03.2019, the petitioner filed an application before the learned District Court praying for declaring the marriage between the petitioner and the opposite party no.1 null and void. Thereafter, on 06.4.2019, the opposite party no.1 filed an application under Section 125 of the Code claiming maintenance allowance from the petitioner under Section 125 of the Code. A process was issued on such application on 08.04.2019. Subsequently, the petitioner filed an application before the learned Magistrate in the proceeding under Section 125 of the Code claiming that the proceeding was not maintainable and as such, ought to be stayed pending decision of the application for dissolution of marriage. Learned Magistrate held that the proceeding under Section 125 of the Code cannot be stayed on such ground.

3. I have heard the submissions of the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and have perused the revision petition.

4. It appears that a process was issued by the learned Trial Court after the opposite party no.1 had filed an application under Section 125 of the Code. First, the learned Trial Court does not have any power to recall such process, modifying an earlier order or, for that matter, to quash a proceeding on the garb of dropping it.

5. Secondly, the purported plaint for declaring the marriage between the petitioner and the opposite party no.2 as null and void is still pending. Mere pendency of such an application cannot stall the proceeding under Section 125 of the Code, which, inter alia, is meant to prevent vagrancy and destitution of the neglected wife. It is rather inconceivable that for such a civil proceeding that continues for a considerable length of time, the opposite party no.1/wife shall be denied any maintenance allowance in the interregnum.

6. In the view of the above, I do not find any merit in this revisional application. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

7. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order may be supplied to the parties expeditiously, if applied for.