IMPORTANT POINT
The principle of interim maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is based on the concept of economic guardianship to administer justice and protect the right of equality.

JUDGMENT :

Bibhas Ranjan De, J.

1. This revision application has been filed challenging the order dated 18th October, 2023 passed by Ld. Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Court, Paschim Medinipur wherein the Ld. Magistrate refused the prayer of interim maintenance claimed by the petitioner of this revision application.

2. Ld. Counsel, Mr. Ayan Bhattacharya, appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that the marriage between the petitioner and the opposite party no.2 was solemnized on 22.11.2010 as per Hindu Rights and Customs and from then on petitioner started residing with her husband/opposite party no.2, who is an employee of Police Department.

3. It is further submitted that after marriage the opposite party no.2 constantly coerced the petitioner to transfer her land in the name of the opposite party no.2 and even threatened to kill her in case of non-compliance. Being threatened, the petitioner handed over the ownership of her land to the opposite party no.2. Thereafter, the opposite party no.2 started torturing the petitioner on the ground that there was no offspring out of this wedlock. The opposite party no. 2 even took the petitioner for treatment to Kolkata for the same, the discharge certificate of which has been annexed and marked as ‘C’. It is also contended that the opposite party no. 2 re-married and deserted the petitioner.

4. It is further submitted that the opposite party no. 2 is employed in the Police Department with a handsome salary along with agricultural land out of which a good amount of revenue is generated. Mr. Bhattacharya has contended that even after continuous efforts of the petitioner, the opposite party no. 2 refused to keep any kind of communication with the petitioner since 30.06.2012 and has thoroughly neglected her during this whole period. Finding no alternative, the petitioner has prayed for an interim maintenance.

5. In spite of service, none appears on behalf of the opposite party no. 2.

6. After scrutiny of the impugned order it has come to the notice of this Court that the opposite party no.2 has come up with certain contentions of his own. The opposite party no. 2 has submitted that he is employed in the West Bengal Police. He is married to Papri Panja and she is the only legally married wife of the opposite party no.2. The opposite party no.2 has further contended that the petitioner used to frequently visit the police station over various matters by claiming herself to be a social worker and a Mohori in Court. Thereafter, the petitioner told the opposite party no. 2 that she has a landed property in Medinipur which she is not able to protect and she is willing to sell the property. After considering the future prospect the opposite party no. 2 consented to that proposal and Rs. 3,00,000/- was fixed as consideration for the said land. But, only after the opposite party no. 2 paid the money and asked the petitioner for original registration documents, she started making excuses and shockingly on 30.07.2012 claimed to be the legally married wife of the opposite party no. 2 and demanded Rs. 4,00,000/- from the opposite party no. 2 in exchange of return of the original documents. The opposite party no. 2 has further added that several false cases have been filed by the petitioner in order to harass and extract money from the opposite party no. 2.

7. In the impugned order the Ld. Judicial Magistrate has emphasized on the status of some criminal cases in connection with both the parties where the accused has either been discharged or FRT has been issued. But, this does not necessarily mean that relationship status between the parties is settled. Furthermore, from the documents adduced by both the parties especially in relation with the report of the I.V.F (In Vitro Fertilization) Research Centre, it cannot be concluded with certainty that the opposite party no. 2 did not accompany the petitioner as her husband for treatment at the concerned I.V.F. Centre.

8. In addition to that, photocop