IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11882 of 2010 1. ABHIJIT KUMAR @ ABHIJIT CHAURASIA @ PANKAJ S/O SRI BISHWANATH CHAURASIA R/O LOHCHA- PATAM, P.S.- NAYA RAMNAGAR, DISTT.- MUNGER Versus 1. BASUKI DEVI D/O SRI NARESH MANDAL R/O VILL.- LOHCHA- PATAM, P.S.- NAYA RAMNAGAR, DISTT.- MUNGER ----------- For the Petitioner:- Mr. N.K.Agrawal, Sr. Adv. Mr. Manoj Kumar Jha, Adv. For the Respondent:- Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, Adv. Mr. Ramsewak Choudhary, Adv. ----------------- 2. 05.05.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent. The petitioner is the husband aggrieved by the order dated 13.5.2010 of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Munger in Title Suit (Matrimonial) No. 22 of 2010, awarding interim maintenance to the respondent under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act of Rs. 1000/-per month and Rs. 100/- as litigation costs. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Family Court has not adequately considered and dealt with that the petitioner was already married on 24.1.2008 to one Shobha Kumari. He was forcibly abducted on 18.5.2008 and married to the respondent. Complaint Case No. 551C of 2008 was filed by the petitioner on 20.5.2008, in which cognizance has also been taken by the Chief Judicial Magistrate and the respondent and others have 2 entered appearance. The impugned order is therefore not sustainable as the respondent cannot be stated to be the lawful wife of the petitioner. Counsel for the respondent submits that in her written statement she has specifically denied that the petitioner was married to any other and that there has been any forcible abduction. In his reply to the application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, the petitioner has taken no such objection. Complaint Case No. 551C of 2008 filed by the petitioner does not make any statement that he was a already married person on the date that he was allegedly abducted. The respondent has filed Complaint Case No. 748c of 2008 on 3.7.2008, against the petitioner and others under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code which was challenged before this Court in Criminal Misc. No. 44923 of 2008. A similar defence was taken with regard to the institution of Complaint Case No. 551c of 2008 by the petitioner. Rejecting the application on 25.1.2010, this Court observed that these were questions which could be adjudicated in a full-fledged trial as disputed facts were involved. The petitioner admits his marriage to the respondent. He sets out a defence of an earlier 3 marriage and files a Complaint case of abduction and forceful marriage. He makes no mention of his earlier marriage in the Complaint case. The plaint is on record. Suffice it to observe that if the petitioner was earlier married to another surely he would have impleaded his first wife as the best witness in the case filed by him. The observations in the present case are confined for the purposes of the present impugned order dated 13.5.2010 only. The writ application is dismissed. P. Kumar (Navin Sinha, J.)