Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 181 (AP)

Sarju Rabidas v. State of Bihar

2003-02-03

TAPAN SEN

body2003
Judgment Tapen Sen, J.— Heard Mr. Mahesh Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. Pradip Modi, learned G.P.I. for the State-Respon-dents. No body appears on behalf of the Respondent No. 3, i.e., Bundiya Devi. 2. The petitioner in the instant case is aggrieved by the letter dated 22-9-1993 as contained at Annexure 4, by reason whereof the Additional District Magistrate, Dhanbad, directed the General Manager, East Colliery, Katras of M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Limited to deduct a sum of Rs. 500/- (Rupees Five Hundred) each month from the salary of the Petitioner and pay the same to the Respondent No. 3. 3. From the text of the impugned letter it appears that earlier on 16-3-1993 the Office of the said Additional District Magistrate had sent a letter to the General Manager directing that departmental proceeding be initiated against the petitioner. The impugned letter expresses regret that inspite of such a letter having been sent, no departmental proceeding had been initiated. In the second paragraph of the impugned letter it has been mentioned that there is a complaint against the petitioner to the effect that he had driven out his second wife (Respondent No. 3) after assaulting her and was not maintaining her which was a source of great difficulty to her and to her child. In the last paragraph of the impugned order, the Additional District Magistrate refers to a meeting purporting to have taken place on 17-8-1993 with the Deputy Commissioner and in that meeting, a unanimous decision appears to have been taken to the effect that the aforesaid deduction of Rs. 500/- (Rupees five hundred) should be made from the salary and paid to the Respon-dent No. 3. 4. While issuing notice upon the Respondent No. 3 by order dated 11-1-1994, a Division bench passed an inte-rim order directing that in the meantime the Respondent No. 3 shall not be paid the amount which has to be deducted pursuant to the impugned order dated 22-9-1993. 5. A Counter Affidavit has been filed in the instant case by Respondent No. 3, but no body appears to press that affidavit. However, it has been men-tioned that she was married in the year 1972 to the petitioner and that there were 3 (three) daughters out of the  said wedlock, but the petitioner had committed the offence of bigamy with one Smt. Bali Devi. However, it has been men-tioned that she was married in the year 1972 to the petitioner and that there were 3 (three) daughters out of the  said wedlock, but the petitioner had committed the offence of bigamy with one Smt. Bali Devi. This marriage, according to the Respondent No. 3, is illegal and the petitioner is therefore liable to pay maintenance to her as she is unable to maintain herself and her children. She has also stated at para-graph 8 of her Counter Affidavit that she filed in application before the Addi-tional Collector, Dhanbad and she has attempted to justify the impugned order by saying that it is a sufficient compliance of the provisions of Sec-tion 125(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 6. This Court is satisfied that the impugned order is totally illegal, without jurisdiction and absolutely uncalled for. 7. It appears that the impugned order was issued under the signature of Additional District Magistrate from the Office of the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad. The order, therefore, is completely without jurisdiction, as firstly, is completely without jurisdic-tion, as firstly, he is not the ‘appropriate authority to pass the order as per the provisions of Section 125 of the code of Criminal Procedure and secondly because the entire exercise of taking the decision appears to have been taken in a meeting held in the Office of the Deputy Commissioner not only behind the back of the petitioner but completely contrary to the provisions of Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 8. Consequently the impugned order is set aside and quashed. This order, however, shall not be construed to mean that it will act as a bar for the Respondent No. 3 to file an appropriate application before the appropriate forum. The writ Application stands allo-wed. However, there shall be no order as to cost. Petition allowed.