1 srk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY Appellate Side Criminal Writ Petition No.1627 of 2009 Mrs. Chanda Kishor Patadia Petitioner Vs. Senior Inspector of Police, Gamdevi Police Station & anr. Respondents Mr.Murtaza Khokhawala for petitioner. Mrs.V.R.Bhosale, APP for State. Mr.Sachin Punde for proposed respondent – wife. CORAM: B.H.MARLAPALLE & R.Y. GANOO,JJ. December 14, 2009. P.C. 1. We have heard Mr.Khokhawala, the learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The petitioner is the mother of Mithun Patadia and she claims that he was misled into signing some papers for registration of marriage allegedly taken place between Sheetal Simoria and her son and the police are not taking appropriate steps. As per the petitioner her son Mithun is not married to Sheetal as claimed on 6/11/2006 and the registration of the 2 said marriage that has taken place on 6/4/2006 is on the basis of the signatures obtained by Sheetal on false representation. 3. Admittedly Sheetal has filed M.J.Petition No.C-155 of 2007 in the Family Court at Bandra praying for maintenance for herself and her son. It is not disputed that Sheetal begot a son from Mithun on 19/10/2007. It is the contention of the petitioner that Sheetal and Mithun were not married in accordance with the Hindu religion, on 6/11/2006 or any time. It is also alleged that Sheetal suppressed her status when she had registered her name with the Marriage Bureau by name Milap Bureau at Chowpatty, Mumbai. It is claimed that Sheetal was already married and she had obtained a divorce from her first husband and despite this she did not indicate her status as a divorcee but claimed that she was unmarried. 4. Mithun has filed a Written Statement in M.J. Petition No.C-155 of 2007 and the petitioner is representing him as the constituted attorney. In our opinion, it is for Mithun to dispute his marital status with Sheetal and the fact that they begot a son on 19/10/2007 cannot be brushed aside when raising of the allegations about the factum of marriage or marriage 3 ceremonies having not been performed as per the Hindu religion. The petitioner, prima facie, has no locus standi to file complaints against Sheetal when her son Mithun has not taken any steps to question his marriage with Sheetal. In fact in the complaint addressed to the Police Commissioner by the petitioner, it has been admitted that Sheetal has stayed with Mithun in Dubai for about three months prior to 6/11/2006. 5. In these circumstances, in case the petitioner still believes that there was a false representation made or Sheetal was guilty of any offence punishable under the Indian Penal Code, the complainant is at liberty to file a private complaint against Sheetal as well as Mithun, if she so desires. 6. Hence the petition is disposed by relegating the petitioner to file a private complaint, if so desired. (R.Y.GANOO,J.) (B.H.MARLAPALLE,J.)