Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 892 (GAU)

Khagesh Chakraborty v. Subhra Chakraborty

2011-11-15

SWAPAN CHANDRA DAS

body2011
ORDER Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.C. Das 1. This revision application, under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, is filed challenging the correctness, legality and propriety of the judgment and order, dated 04.02.2011, passed by the learned Judge In-charge, Family Court, Udaipur, South Tripura, in Crl. Misc.FC/UDP/15 of 2010, directing the petitioner herein to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs. 1,500/- (rupees fifteen hundred) per month to the respondent-wife and Rs. 500/- (rupees five hundred) per month to the minor son of the petitioner, w.e.f. 01.02.2011. 2. I have heard learned senior counsel, Mr. A.C. Bhowmik, assisted by learned counsel, Mr. D. Sarkar for the petitioner, and the learned counsel, Mr. D.C. Nath for the respondent. I have also gone through the impugned judgment, dated 04.02.2011, passed by the learned Judge In-charge, Family Court, Udaipur, South Tripura, and the evidence and materials on record. 3. It is not disputed that the respondent No.1 is the wife of the petitioner and respondent No.2 is their minor son. It is also not disputed that the respondents are living apart from the petitioner and that they have no independent source of income. 4. The point agitated by learned senior counsel, Mr. Bhowmik is that the petitioner is a physically disabled person and has no source of income and, therefore, direction given by the learned Judge, Family Court, regarding payment of compensation, is not warranted and that the amount is excessive and harsh. 5. It is the solemn duty of the petitioner to maintain his wife and minor child, irrespective of the fact that they are residing with him or not. The issue regarding refusal to live with the petitioner has been well decided by the learned Judge, Family Court even taking aids from the pleadings of the petitioner. Under such circumstances, where the respondent No.1 had valid reason to live apart from the petitioner, it is the duty cast upon the petitioner to maintain his wife and minor child, who have got no independent source of income. 6. The petitioner, as it appears, is a physically handicapped and it is found that the petitioner has got his source of income by doing priest-craft. Learned Judge, Family Court has arrived at a decision that the monthly income of the petitioner is Rs. 4,000/- (rupees four thousand) per month. Had the petitioner no such income of Rs. 6. The petitioner, as it appears, is a physically handicapped and it is found that the petitioner has got his source of income by doing priest-craft. Learned Judge, Family Court has arrived at a decision that the monthly income of the petitioner is Rs. 4,000/- (rupees four thousand) per month. Had the petitioner no such income of Rs. 4,000/- per month from the source of priest-craft, or otherwise, he would not maintain himself and his wife and child, while they were living together. Since the petitioner could maintain his wife and child, while living together, it is to be presumed that he has sufficient source of income to maintain his wife and children, while living apart from him. The petitioner adduced no such supporting evidence that he has no income at all. 7. Under such circumstances, grant of maintenance at the rate of Rs. 1,500/- (rupees fifteen hundred) per month to the respondent No.1 and Rs. 500/- (rupees five hundred) per month to the respondent No.2, cannot be said to be harsh and excessive. I find no incorrectness, illegality or impropriety in the order passed by the learned Judge, Family Court and, hence, the judgment and order does not deserve any interference. 8. The revision application therefore stands dismissed and, accordingly, disposed of. 9. Send back the Lower Court's Records alongwith copy of this order. Application dismissed