Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Sri Suvash Chandra Mahata vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 1 May, 2023
4.
01-05-2023
debajyoti
(Ct. no.06)
FMA 122 of 2023
+
IA NO:CAN/1/2023
Sri Suvash Chandra Mahata
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Swapan Kumar Pal,
Ms. Srijani Mukherjee
... For the Appellant.
Ms. Sipra Majumder,
Mr. Milan Kumar Maity
... For the State.
Affidavit-of-Service filed in Court today be taken
on record. In spite of service, the private respondent is
not represented. However, in view of the order that we
propose to pass, it is not necessary to defer hearing of
this matter.
By consent of the appearing parties, the appeal
and the connected application are taken up together
for hearing.
A judgment and order dated November 03, 2022,
whereby the appellant's writ petition was dismissed, is
under challenge in this appeal.
The appellant approached the learned Single
Judge challenging the validity of a Certificate dated
January 18, 2017 issued by the Pradhan of Arjuni
Gram Panchayat, Kharagpur-I Block, to the effect that
the private respondent herein is a resident of Gaidua,
P.O. Hariatara, Paschim Medinipur. There are other
statements in the Certificate which are not relevant for
the present purpose.
The appellant is aggrieved by the residential
address of the private respondent that is mentioned in
the aforesaid Certificate. He says that way back in
1980, the private respondent had left that address and
had gone back to her parental house. In any event, on
her own admission contained in paragraph 11 of her
petition under Section 12 of the Protection of Women
from the Domestic Violence Act filed in Misc. Case
No.69 of 2017 in the Court of Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Paschim Medinipur, she moved from the
house of the present appellant on January 25, 1995
and since then, has been living in her father's house.
The appellant/writ petitioner prayed for
quashing/cancellation of the aforesaid Certificate
issued by the Pradhan in favour of the private
respondent.
The learned Judge noted that two suits have been
filed by the writ petitioner. One is Matrimonial Suit
No.375 of 2016 filed in the Court of the learned
District Judge, Paschim Medinipur claiming divorce.
Another suit has been filed by the writ petitioner for
declaration that the private respondent is not his
legally married wife. The learned Judge dismissed the
writ petition with the following observations:-
" In the opinion of the Court, when
there are other proceedings pending with
regard to the issue of marriage and
identity of the respondent no.4, any
observation or order passed by this Court
will directly interfere with the
proceedings which have been initiated by
the petitioner himself for divorce and
also for declaration that the respondent
no.4 was not his wife. It also appears
that in the proceeding under Section 24
of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, another
alleged person claiming to be wife of the
petitioner sought to be added as a party.
Under such circumstances, the status
of the respondent no.4 and the marriage
between the respondent no.4 and the
petitioner are sub judice.
The petitioner is always at liberty
to take appropriate steps with regard to
the certificate that has been issued in
favour of the respondent no.4 before the
civil court. The writ petition is not
maintainable for the reasons stated
hereinabove. Whether the Pradhan knew
the respondent no.4 as the wife of the
petitioner is a question of fact. In any
event the status of the petitioner's wife
would be determined in the civil suit.
All documents of identity of the
respondent no.4, as the petitioner's wife
will also be subject to the decision in
the civil suit. "
Being aggrieved, the writ petitioner has come up
by way of this appeal.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
We find absolutely no infirmity in the order under
appeal. The learned Judge has noted that two suits
have been filed by the appellant against the private
respondent. The appellant, however, says before us
that he will withdraw the suit wherein he has claimed
divorce and for that purpose, he has filed an
application before the learned Court below. The other
suit has been dismissed for default. He prays for
liberty to file a suit for delivery up and cancellation of
the Certificate that has been issued by the Pradhan in
favour of the private respondent.
Since we are not interfering with the order under
appeal, we are not inclined to pass any order.
However, the appellant will be at liberty to take such
steps as he may be entitled to in law.
If any such fresh proceeding is initiated by the
appellant, the same shall be decided without being
influenced by any observation in this order or in the
order of the learned Single Judge.
The appeal and the connected application are,
accordingly, disposed of.
Affidavits not having been called for, the
allegations in the application for passing appropriate
order, shall be deemed not to have been admitted by
the respondents.
All parties shall act on the server copies of this
order duly downloaded from the official website of this
Court.
Urgent photostat certified copies of this order, if
applied for, be supplied to the parties on compliance of
all necessary formalities.
(Apurba Sinha Ray, J.) (Arijit Banerjee, J.)
