Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 213 (CAL)

Chandana @ Sankari Banerjee v. Goutam Banerjee

2006-04-05

ARUN KUMAR BHATTACHARYA

body2006
Judgment :- Arun Kumar Bhattacharya, J. The hearing stems from an application under section 401 read with section 482 Cr.PC filed by the petitioner praying for revision of the order dated 31.05.2004 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, First Track Court No.4, Barrackpore in Criminal Motion No.3/2004 reversing the order dated 24.09.2003 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, North 24 Parganas, Barasat in case No.M-124/99. 2. The circumstances leading to the above application are that the petitioner is the legally married wife of O.P. No.1, their marriage having been solemnized on 07.12.96 according to Hindu rites and customs, and in that wedlock a female child was born. She was pressurized by O.P. No.1 for bringing more dowry from her parents and ultimately she was driven out from her matrimonial home on 15.12.97. She initiated the said maintenance proceeding under section 125 Cr.PC being case No. M-124/99 claiming maintenance @ Rs. 1,500/- p.m. for self and Rs. 600/-p.m. for her minor child which was allowed in part by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, North 24 Parganas, Barasat by order dated 24.09.2003 awarding maintenance to the petitioner @ Rs. 1,000/- p.m. and her child @ Rs. 600/-p.m. which reversed by the impugned order dated 31.05.2004 in Criminal Motion No.3/2004. 3. Being aggrieved by, and dissatisfied with, the said order, the petitioner has come up before this Court. 4. As none appeared for O.P.No.1, the matter was heard ex parte. 5. Mr. Chatterjee, learned Counsel for the petitioner, assailed the impugned order as perverse contending that when all the necessary ingredients of the provision of section 125 Cr.PC have been established, the learned Revisional Court below reversed the order of the learned Magistrate solely on the ground of non-production of any document by the present petitioner showing business of the O.P. in spices. 6. Undisputedly the petitioner is the legally married wife of O.P. No.1 and in that wedlock a female child was born. There is also no dispute that the said O.P. No.1 is an employee of M/s. Aurio Pharmaceutical Laboratories. 7. To sustain an application under section 125 Cr.PC filed by a wife for self and her child, one out of three essential ingredients required to be established is that the husband has sufficient means. 8. Regarding other two ingredients there is no dispute that the same have been duly established by the petitioner. 9. 7. To sustain an application under section 125 Cr.PC filed by a wife for self and her child, one out of three essential ingredients required to be established is that the husband has sufficient means. 8. Regarding other two ingredients there is no dispute that the same have been duly established by the petitioner. 9. As regards the aforesaid ingredient, it is well settled that `means does not signify only visible means, and if one is healthy and able-bodied he shall be held to have sufficient means to support his wife. It also does not mean the tangible property or sources of income of the husband but also his capacity, potentiality and status. The onus lies on the husband to show want of means. It is the specific evidence of the petitioner (P.W.1) that at the time of her marriage (in 1996) the O.P. used to earn Rs. 2,000/- p.m. as an employee of M/s. Aurio Pharmaceutical Laboratories and Rs. 3,000/-p.m. from his business of cooking spices. Though the O.P. in his written objection claimed that he gets Rs. 42/- per day with 10% D.A. and 5% house rent allowance, totalling to Rs. 1,500/- p.m. as daily labourer, in his evidence as O.P.W.1 he reduced the earning to Rs. 600/- to 700/-p.m. only contending that he is working there on daily wages basis on condition of `no work no pay which is quite contradictory to his pleadings. It has rightly been observed by the learned Magistrate that a daily worker cannot be expected to get D.A. and house rent allowance. However, O.P. has suppressed the truth and he does not appear to have come with clean hands. The O.P. could easily call for and produce the Pay Register of his firm which he failed to do and it will lead the Court to draw an adverse inference that had it been called for and produced, it would have supported the petitioners story. So, he having failed to discharge the burden of showing want of means, he is supposed to have sufficient means to maintain his wife and child. 10. As regards earning from business, though the evidence of P.W.1 is supported by her elder sisters husband (P.W.2), it cannot be held to be sufficient. 11. So, he having failed to discharge the burden of showing want of means, he is supposed to have sufficient means to maintain his wife and child. 10. As regards earning from business, though the evidence of P.W.1 is supported by her elder sisters husband (P.W.2), it cannot be held to be sufficient. 11. Nevertheless, mere absence of proof of earning from business will not absolve the O.P. from his solemn and legal duty to maintain his wife and child as required under section 125, the object of which is preventive so that the wife and child are not left beggared and destituted and thereby driven to a life of vagrancy, immorality and crime. 12. The word "maintenance", which should not be narrowly interpreted, means the most reasonable requirement for the existence of a person to live separate, and accordingly the expenditure, broadly speaking, not only includes on food, clothing and residence but also medical expenses. The concept of providing a wife merely with food, clothing and lodging as if she is only a chattel and has to depend on the sweet-will and mercy of the husband has now become completely outdated and absolutely archaic, as was observed in the case of Sirajmohamedankhan vs. H. Yasinkhan, reported in 1981 Cr. LJ 1430 (SC). For determining the quantum of maintenance, the needs and requirements of the wife for a moderate living, the earnings of the husband, his capacity to earn, his commitments and the status of the parties are relevant factors. 13. Taking into account the trend of rising prices of every essential material day by day, the amount of maintenance so awarded by the ld. Trial Court cannot be held to be unjust and unreasonable. 14. Therefore, in the light of the above discussion, how the ld. Revisional Court below reversed the order of the learned Magistrate is really not understood. The learned Revisional Court below does not appear to have viewed the matter from proper perspective which resulted in gross failure of justice, and as such the impugned order is not at all sustainable. 15. Accordingly, the revisional application be allowed ex parte. 16. The impugned order dated 31.05.2004 passed by the ld. Additional Sessions Judge, First Track Court No.4, Barrackpore in Criminal Motion No.3 of 2004 is set aside. 17. Let a copy of this order along with the LCR be sent down at once to the ld. 15. Accordingly, the revisional application be allowed ex parte. 16. The impugned order dated 31.05.2004 passed by the ld. Additional Sessions Judge, First Track Court No.4, Barrackpore in Criminal Motion No.3 of 2004 is set aside. 17. Let a copy of this order along with the LCR be sent down at once to the ld. Court below. 18. Urgent xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties with utmost expedition. Revisional application allowed.