JUDGEMENT AND ORDER :

Heard Mr. K.U. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. B. Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State/respondent No.1 and Ms. M. Pathak, learned counsel for the respondent No.2

2. By filing an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioners have sought for quashing of a proceeding of D.V. Misc. Case No.22/2020 pending in the court of learned JMFC, Kamrup, Hajo.

3. The brief facts of the case is that the respondent No. 2 as petitioner filed a petition under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter for brevity as D.V. Act) before the JMFC, Kamrup, Hajo, which was registered as D.V. Misc. Case No.22/2020. In the said case, the present petitioners were arrayed as respondents. The grievance in the said petition against the petitioners is that the respondent No.2 and her son were subjected to torture both physically as well as mentally by the present petitioners and the petitioners forcefully drove away the respondent No. 2 and her son in the year 1999 from her matrimonial home. In connection with the said incident, the respondent No.2 lodged an FIR before the Hajo police station on 17.06.2019 which was registered as Hajo P.S. Case No.466/2019 under Section 294/325/506/34 IPC. In the said petition, the respondent No.2 prayed for relief/reliefs under Sections 18/19/20/21/23 of the D.V. Act along with an interim prayer of maintenance for herself and her son.

4. After registering the case, notices were issued to the present petitioners but the notices were not received by the petitioners in time due to Covid-19 pandemic as well as nationwide lockdown. It is alleged that during lockdown period on 01.07.2020, the learned trial court passed an ex-parte order against the petitioners whereby the petitioner No. 1 was directed to pay interim maintenance of Rs.2,000/- per month to the aggrieved person i.e. respondent No. 2. On receipt of the notice, the petitioners have filed their written statements whereby the petitioners stated that the respondent No.2 is not the wife of the petitioner No.1 and petitioner No.1 was not related with the birth of the child of the respondent No.2.

5. After appearing in the said D.V. Misc. Case No.22/2020, the petitioners filed an application under Section 25 of D.V. Act to revoke the ex-parte order dated 01.07.2020 but after hearing both parties, the said petition was rejected by the learned trial court on 20.11.2021 and directed to make payment to the respondent No. 2 as per order dated 01.07.2020.

6. By challenging the order dated 01.07.2020, the petitioners have preferred a revision petition before the court of learned Sessions Judge, Kamrup, Amingaon under Section 29 of D.V. Act however, after hearing both sides, the prayer in the criminal revision was dismissed by an order dated 25.04.2022 on the ground that there was no jurisdiction for interference with impugned order dated 01.07.2020.

7. On the other hand, the case of the respondent No. 2 who is the petitioner in D.V. Misc Case No.22/2020 is that she is the wife of the petitioner No.1 Dhanpati Das and they enjoyed their married life as husband and wife since 1995. The petitioner No. 1 brought the respondent No. 2 in his house to look after his small children in 1994 stating that his first wife Anjali Das had expired. On the same day, the petitioner No. 1 offered the respondent No. 2 the status of wife in presence of family members of both the families and also the villagers and got married respondent No.2.

8. It is further alleged that the petitioner had intentionally concealed the fact that his first wife was alive and started to lead conjugal life with respondent No.2 by offering her the status of legally married wife but in the year 2000, the first wife of the petitioner No.1 had appeared in the house of the petitioner No. 1, when the respondent No. 2 was carrying five months of pregnancy. On being asked, the petitioner No. 1 had disclosed that his wife had n