16.02.2026 Item No.95 Ct. No. 34 nb CRR 2199 of 2023 In the matter of: Smt. Bulti De(Das).

...… petitioner.

Mr. Gobinda Chandra Baidya, Mr. Bobinda Baidya, Mr. Probhas Mondal, .…For the Petitioner

1. This revisional application has been filed for setting aside the judgment and order dated March 17, 2023 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 6^th Court, Paschim Medinipur in Misc. Case No. MR 206/2021 under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

2. The petitioner is the legally married wife of the opposite party no.2, which was solemnized on March 13, 2019 according Hindu Rights and Customs and they started to lead conjugal life as husband and wife and the said marriage was consummated. Subsequently, on account of marital discord the relations turned sour. A number of proceeding initiated between the parties against each other. In connection with the proceeding under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed by the wife an amount Rs.40, 000/- was claimed by the present petitioner/wife as maintenance and the learned Court of Magistrate by passing the impugned order refused such prayer with the observation that the Court is not in a position to conclude as to whether the petitioner left matrimonial home and whether the opposite party/husband failed and neglected to maintain his wife.

3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the opposite party no.2 admitted to be an employee of TCS in his written objection and his monthly earning was mentioned as of earning Rs.32,000/- but despite repeated direction passed by the learned Magistrate, he did not file his affidavit of asset and liability. The present petitioner disclosed by way of filing affidavit of asset that she is a home maker having no income. The husband initially filed a suit for restitution of conjugal right and after the same being dismissed for default, filed a suit for declaration that the marriage is null and void.

4. It is submitted by the learned advocate that being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Magistrate refusing to pay any maintenance this revisional application was filed and she is not getting any amount as maintenance as on that. The further hearing of the said proceeding is also pending on account of pendency of this revisional application.

5. None appears on behalf of the opposite party no.2 and from the record; it transpires that on December 10, 2025 an advocate claiming to be authorized to appear on behalf of the opposite party no.2 prayed for time on the ground of filing vokalatnama within the week. Subsequently did not turn and no fresh vakalatnama can be found from the record.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and careful perusal of the materials on record, prima facie, it appears that the marriage was not challenged before the court of learned Magistrate while considering the application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure .Admittedly, an application for restitution of conjugal right was filed by the husband against the present petitioner which further admit the factum of marriage. The subsequent suit was filed under Section 12(1)(b)(c)(d) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 on the ground of nullity of marriage after the previous suit got dismiss for default . This contradictory stand taken by the opposite party no. 2/husband, prima facie, reflects that the husband is trying to avoid his responsibility to maintain his wife. There are numerous proceeding pending between the parties that does not, prima facie, takes away the responsibility of the opposite party/husband to maintain his wife if she is unable to maintain herself according to the status of the husband. Nothing has been reflected from the order passed by the learned Magistrate as to why the mandatory direction passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case Rajnesh Vs. Neha (AIR 2021 SUPREME COURT 569) has not been complied with by the husband when the husband/opposite party himself admitted in his affidavit-in- opposition