Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 897 (GAU)

Rakhal Debnath v. Anima Debnath

2011-11-16

SWAPAN CHANDRA DAS

body2011
JUDGMENT Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.C. Das 1. None present for the Petitioner. Heard learned Counsel Mr. S. Datta for the Respondent. 2. This revisional application was filed on 05.07.2004, challenging the order dated 17.06.2004, passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Agartala, in Case No. Misc.62/2003, under Section125 Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned Judge, Family Court allowed the maintenance allowance to the Respondent-wife @ Rs. 2,500/- per month. Being aggrieved, the Petitioner-husband preferred this revisional application, under Section 19(A) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 read with Sections 397 and 401Code of Criminal Procedure. 3. Though the case is fixed for hearing, the Petitioner has remained absent. I think, the revisional application should be disposed of on merit and, accordingly, I have heard Mr. Datta, learned Counsel, who has appeared for the Respondent. I have meticulously gone through the judgment passed by the learned Judge, Family Court and the evidence as well as the materials on record. 4. The brief fact, as narrated, is that marriage between the Petitioner and the Respondent was solemnised on 11.12.2000 and at the time of marriage, golden ornaments, furniture and other articles and a scooter were given and after marriage they lived and cohabited as husband and wife in the matrimonial home. It is alleged by the Respondent-wife that the Petitioner-husband was a businessman by profession and he demanded Rs. 40,000/- to her to bring the money from her father and that he gradually sold the golden ornaments and scooter, which was given by her father at the time of marriage. She has also stated that, she was subjected to torture, both mentally and physically and on one occasion, her husband took her signature on some stamp papers and, thereafter, directed her to go to her father's house for bringing money. Being afraid, she took shelter in her father's house and her husband did not take care of her and did not pay maintenance to her. Her husband used to earn Rs. 30,000/- per month from his business and other property and was capable of giving maintenance allowance. 5. The Petitioner-husband resisted the claim of the Respondent-wife by filing written objection, denying the allegations made in the petition and stated that, his father-in-law demanded Rs. Her husband used to earn Rs. 30,000/- per month from his business and other property and was capable of giving maintenance allowance. 5. The Petitioner-husband resisted the claim of the Respondent-wife by filing written objection, denying the allegations made in the petition and stated that, his father-in-law demanded Rs. 30,000/- to him on the very first day when he visited the in-law's house with his wife but, he could not arrange the money soon thereafter and, as a result, he sold out the scooter for Rs. 30,000/- and paid the same to his father-in-law. He further stated that the character of the Respondent-wife was doubtful and she used to leave for her parents house every now and then without any reason. According to him, the Respondent-wife had voluntarily left his house after signing some stamp papers, stating that she will not demand any money from her husband in future. The allegation of torture, mentally and physically, was false. 6. As I find on record, the Respondent-wife examined herself and her mother as P Ws 1 and 2 respectively and the Petitioner-husband examined himself as DW.1. The learned Judge, Family Court has taken an attempt for conciliation between the parties but failed and consequently passed the judgment and order, based on the pleadings and the evidence adduced by the parties. 7. The judgment passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, has been assailed before this Court in this revisional application, on the ground that the decision taken by the learned Judge, Family Court was perverse, not based on evidence on record and that there was no reason for the Respondent-wife to live apart from the Petitioner-husband and, therefore, the Respondent-wife is not entitled to get any maintenance. It has also been alleged that the quantum of maintenance was excessive and harsh and based on no evidence at all. 8. I have considered the grounds taken by the Petitioner-husband in the revisional application and also considered the submission made by the learned Counsel Mr. Datta for the Respondent-wife. Marriage between the Petitioner and the Respondent is not disputed. While the marital relation is in force, it is the obligation and bounden duty of the husband to maintain his wife, who has no independent income. There is no evidence before us that the Respondent-wife has got any independent income. Datta for the Respondent-wife. Marriage between the Petitioner and the Respondent is not disputed. While the marital relation is in force, it is the obligation and bounden duty of the husband to maintain his wife, who has no independent income. There is no evidence before us that the Respondent-wife has got any independent income. It is, therefore, clear that the Respondent-wife has no income and that her husband i.e. the Petitioner is legally bound to maintain her. 9. Now, whether there was any cogent reason for the Respondent-wife to live apart from the Petitioner-husband. The Respondent-wife alleged that, she was subjected to torture, mentally and physically, on demand of money by her husband and she was asked to bring money from her parents. She has alleged that, at the time of marriage, golden ornaments, other articles and utensils including a scooter were given as dowry. The Petitioner-husband has stated that, his father-in-law, on the very first day of his visit to in-law's house after the marriage, demanded an amount of Rs. 30,000/- and to meet the demand, he sold out the scooter at a price of Rs. 30,000/- and the same was paid to his father-in-law. The Petitioner has also stated that the character of the Respondent-wife was doubtful as she used to leave for her parents house every now and then, even without informing him. This allegations and counter allegations make it clear that there were consistent dispute between the husband and wife and that the wife is living apart from the Petitioner-husband. While the Petitioner-husband was suspecting the character of the Respondent-wife and the Respondent-wife had taken shelter in her parents house after signing some stamp papers, as alleged by the Petitioner-husband, I think, the learned Judge, Family Court has correctly appreciated the facts and arrived at a right finding that the wife had the reason to live apart from her husband. 10. Regarding the income of the Petitioner-husband, the Respondent-wife, in her petition, stated that the Petitioner-husband had a monthly income of Rs. 30,000/- from his business and other property. In her deposition, she has stated nothing about the income. In his written objection, the Petitioner-husband has stated that his daily income was Rs. 100/- only. No documentary evidence was adduced by the either side. 30,000/- from his business and other property. In her deposition, she has stated nothing about the income. In his written objection, the Petitioner-husband has stated that his daily income was Rs. 100/- only. No documentary evidence was adduced by the either side. The learned Judge, Family Court, taking into consideration that a scooter and other articles were given in the marriage by the parents of the Respondent-wife, held a lump-sum income of Rs. 10,000/- per month of the Petitioner-husband and thereby fixed the maintenance allowance @ Rs.2,500/- per month in favour of the Respondent-wife. 11. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the decision taken by the learned Judge, Family Court, regarding income of the Petitioner-husband cannot be said to have excessive and harsh. In the present day, Rs. 2,500/- for maintenance of a person can in no way be said to be too much. I, therefore, find no merit in the present revisional application and the revisional application, accordingly, stands dismissed and disposed of. Send back the L.C. Records along with a copy of this judgment and order.