Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 960 (GAU)

Pravash Singha v. Mita Singha

2011-12-07

SWAPAN CHANDRA DAS

body2011
JUDGMENT S.C. Das, J. 1. This is an application under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, challenging the judgment and order dated 01.10.2010, passed by learned Judge, Family Court, Kailashahar, North Tripura, in Criminal Misc. Case No.92 of 2010. 2. Since the learned counsel for the petitioner was not available on the date fixed for hearing of the matter, I have heard learned counsel, Mr. S. Bhattacharjee for the respondent and since the revisional application was admitted by this Court, it should be disposed of on merit though the learned counsel for the petitioner was absent. 3. The brief fact leading to the proceeding before the learned Family Court was that the respondent presented a petition before the learned Judge, Family Court, Kailashahar under Section125 of Cr.P.C. praying for granting maintenance to herself and to her minor child @Rs.6,000/- per month alleging that her marriage with the petitioner(husband) was solemnized on 01.05.2007 and thereafter they lived and cohabited as husband and wife and a girl child was born out of their wedlock, who was about one year old at that time. Since after marriage, the petitioner subjected her to cruelty on demand of an amount of Rs.50,000/-, but she could not bring the amount from her parental home, and therefore, she was tormented both mentally and physically by the husband and on 02.04.2011 she was beaten out of the matrimonial home and under compelling circumstances she took shelter in her parental home. She has no source of income and therefore she prayed for maintenance for herself and her minor daughter. 4. The petitioner contested the case by filing written statement inter alia, stating that the respondent voluntarily left the matrimonial home and that there was no occasion for the petitioner to demand Rs.50,000/- from her and that the respondent wanted him to go to her parents house and live there and that the respondent physically assaulted his grand mother for which village meetings were held but the respondent failed to rectify herself. He further stated that he was a truck driver by profession and earned Rs.4,000/- per month and that he has no other source of income and since the respondent was living apart, she was not entitled to get any maintenance. He further stated that he was a truck driver by profession and earned Rs.4,000/- per month and that he has no other source of income and since the respondent was living apart, she was not entitled to get any maintenance. As I find on record, learned Judge, Family court considered the written statements of both side and after recording evidence as adduced by both side directed the petitioner-husband to pay maintenance @Rs.2,000/- per month(Rs.1,000/- each for the respondent and the minor daughter) and, being aggrieved, the petitioner husband preferred the present petition challenging the order passed by the learned Judge, Family Court. 5. The present petition under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act has been presented in the form of revisional application and according to law a revisional Court is to see the correctness, legality and propriety of an order passed by an inferior Court and regularity of the proceeding before such Court. The revisional Court is not required to reassess and reappreciate the evidence on record unless it is apparently shown that the judgment/order passed by the inferior Court was perverse or without any legal evidence. 6. In the case in hand, I find that the learned Judge, Family Court carefully considered the petition and written statements, presented by both side and arrived at a reasonable finding. On perusal of the impugned judgment and after going through the petition, written statements and evidence on record, I find that the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was not been disputed. It was also not disputed that the respondent had no independent source of income and that the petitioner was working as a driver and according to him he is earning Rs.4,000/- per month. The respondent-wife alleged that she was subjected to torture mentally and physically from the very inception on demand of Rs.50,000/- and she could not bring the amount from her parental home and that she was beaten out of the matrimonial home by the petitioner husband. The contention of the petitioner husband was that the respondent often without his consent left his house and that the respondent assaulted his grandmother for which village meetings were also held and that the respondent demanded that the petitioner should go to the parental house of the respondent and live there as 'gharjamai'. It seems dispute and difference was existing between the petitioner and the respondent. It seems dispute and difference was existing between the petitioner and the respondent. It was an admitted fact that the respondent had been living apart from the petitioner and with the minor children and she has taken shelter in her parental home. Under such circumstances, while the respondent had no independent income and she was living apart from the petitioner because of some dispute and difference between them, in my considered opinion, the grant of maintenance by the learned Judge, Family Court was appropriate and does not deserve interference by this Court. The amount as it appears, Rs.2,000/- per month was/is very minimum in these heard days of price rise and therefore I find no reason at all even to interfere in the quantum of maintenance. The revisional application accordingly stands dismissed. 7. Send back the L.C. records along with a copy of this order.