GOBINDO CHANDRA CHATTERJEE, J, J. ( 1 ) THIS revisional application under S. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is directed against an order dated 30. 4. 85 passed by the learned District Judge, Murshidabad in Misc. Appeal No. 66 of 1984 reversing the order dated 31. 5. 1984 passed by the learned Munsif, 2nd Court, Kandi in O. S. No. 34 of 1983. The facts in so far as they are relevant for the purpose of this application may briefly be described as follows :- ( 2 ) TOWARDS May 1981 opposite party Krishna Ganguly was residing with family of one Sunil Mukherjee, a local S. I. of Police at Kandi, Murshidabad. Krishna and the petitioner Radha Madhab Raj were known to each other from before. Krishna along with the members of Sunil Mukherjee's family and Radha Madhab Raj visited Nalhati at Nalhateswari Temple, According to the opposite party, she (Krishna Ganguly) was married to the petitioner on 19th of June, 1981 inside the famous temple at Tarapit according to Hindu rites and customs and the said marriage was registered in the office of Muslim Registrar of Marriage. Further according to Krishna, the two then spent a few days (about 7 days) by boarding on a local hotel where cohabitation also did take place. The girl's case is that since then Radha Madhab Raj was heard no more and that she was completely left alone and forsaken by her husband. The case of the petitioner Radha Madhab Raj is that although he had been to Nalhati at the request of the members of the family of Sunil Mukherjee, he was never married to Krishna Ganguly in the way as alleged and that no cohabitation did take place at all. His grievance is that the members of the family of Sunil Mukherjee got a piece of paper signed by hi by practicing fraud upon him and that he was merely a school boy at that time and minor too Be that as it may, the fact runs that Krishna filed an application for maintenance under S 125 Cr. P C on 28the of August 1981 and the same was registered as Misc Case No. 186 of 1981. P C on 28the of August 1981 and the same was registered as Misc Case No. 186 of 1981. The petitioner thereafter filed a civil Suit in the 2nd Court of Munsif at Kanji praying inter alias for a declaration that Krishna was never hiss married wife and hat she was therefore not entitled o any maintenance from him Before the learned Munsif Radha Madhab Raj prayed for an order of temporary injunction restraining Krishana from proceeding with he said Misc Case No 186 of 1981 Upon hearing both the parties, the learned Munsif was order Krishna moved the learned District Judge, Murshidabad. By his order dated 30. 4. 85 the learned District judge, Murshidabad. By his order dated 30. 4. 85 the learned District Judge set aside the said order of the learned Munsif. Being aggrieved there by Radha Madhab has come up in revision before us. ( 3 ) SRI Saktinath Mukherjee, learned advocate appearing for he petitioner has invited our attention to some features of the case, which he termed as "peculiar". Radha Madhab is very rich man's son. At the relevant time he was a mere school boy. Both the parties are admittedly Hindus. According to Mr. Mukherjee it is strange that their alleged marriage was solemnized and registered in the office of the Muslim Registrar of Marriage According to Mr. Mukherjee it is equally strange that barely two months and a week after their alleged marriage, Krishna would rush to the Criminal Court demanding maintenance per month. No less striking is the fact that the parents of boy were conspicuous by their absence on the date of marriage. Mr. Mukherjee has therefore contended that the parties were never married to each other. Mr. Mukherjee has drawn our attention to the affidavit-in-reply filed by Radha Madhab Raj's father (Sri Avoy Kumar Raj ). It has been adumbrated inter alia in that affidavit-in-reply that "the brother-in-law of the opposite party S. I. of Police who was posted at Kandi managed the entire matter". Mr. Mukherjee has summed up his argument by concluding that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case it will be just and proper to pass an order of injunction thereby restraining Krishna from proceeding with the maintenance proceeding so that his client can be heard in support of his grievance as placed in the plaint of civil suit concerned. Mukherjee has summed up his argument by concluding that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case it will be just and proper to pass an order of injunction thereby restraining Krishna from proceeding with the maintenance proceeding so that his client can be heard in support of his grievance as placed in the plaint of civil suit concerned. ( 4 ) MR. Basu learned Advocate appearing for Krishna Ganguly has drawn our attention to S. 41 of the Specific Relief Act which lays down in clear terms that "injunction cannot be granted to restrain any person from instituting or prosecuting any proceeding in a criminal matter". ( 5 ) WE have heard the learned Advocate appearing on both sides. We have perused the affidavit-in-opposition filed by Sunil Mukherjee as also the affidavit-in-reply filed by Avoy Kumar Raj. We have given our best consideration to the facts and circumstances of the case. For the present we are not going to express any opinion as to whether Krishna was or was not legally married to Radha Madhab Raj. It is for the trial court concerned to decide that point. In course of the hearing we asked. Mr. Basu as to why the marriage came to be registered in the office of Muslim Registrar of Marriage although according to the opposite party they were married "in the temple at Tarapit according to Hindu rites and customs". Mr. Basu frankly conceded that he was himself not to a position to understand as to why the parties approached the Muslik Marriage Registrar at all. Then again there is the question with regard to the exact age of Radha Madhab at the relevant time. In the affidavit-in-reply it has been clearly stated that Radha Madhab was a mere schoolboy at the relevant time. The learned trial court will have yet to consider all these things and also the facts and circumstances of this case which were termed as "peculiar" by Mr. Mukherjee. We are thus restraining ourselves from expressing our opinion about the merits of the case. We want to make it clear here and now that the case put forward by Radha Madhab need not be thrown and rejected outright. In our opinion Radha Madhab should be heard before he is condemned. Mukherjee. We are thus restraining ourselves from expressing our opinion about the merits of the case. We want to make it clear here and now that the case put forward by Radha Madhab need not be thrown and rejected outright. In our opinion Radha Madhab should be heard before he is condemned. Indeed we are quite confident that if we allow both the civil and criminal proceedings to continue simultaneously over the self-same subject matter, various unnecessary and undesirable complications may crop up in future. If the criminal proceeding is allowed to go on, the result will be that sooner or later the institution of the civil suit may prove itself to be completely infructuous. Section 41 cited and relied upon by Sri Basu has been interpreted by a Division Bench of this Court to mean and imply that "extreme position cannot be maintained that there is absolutely no jurisdiction of the court to restrain proceeding before a Magistrate" (case of Jamila Khatoon v. Umar Alia Munna and Anr, reported in 85 CWN 940 cited and relied upon by the opposite party before the learned District Judge ). In our opinion therefore the learned Munsif was right in staying the criminal proceeding and granting an order of injunction against Krishna Ganguly and the learned District Judge was wrong in vacating that order of the learned Munsif. ( 6 ) IN the result the application under S. 115 C. P. C. stands allowed on contest but without any order as to costs. The order dated 30. 4. 85 passed by the learned District Judge, Murshidabad in Misc. Appeal No. 66 of 1984 is hereby set aside. The learned trial court Kandi is directed to dispose of the civil suit (O. S. 34 of 1983) within six months from date. Krishna Ganguly opposite party is hereby temporarily restrained from proceeding with the criminal matter viz. Misc. Case No. 186 of 1981 until the final disposal of the said suit. M. M. Dutt, J.- I agree. Appeal allowed