Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 114 (GAU)

Umesh Sharma v. Silpi Sarma

2015-02-03

PARAN KUMAR PHUKAN

body2015
1. This revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 29.08.2005 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (Sadar), Karimganj in Misc. Case No. 36/2004 under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., whereby, the petitioner was directed to pay Rs. 3,000/- as monthly maintenance allowance to the respondent for herself and for her minor children w.e.f. the date of passing of the order. 2. Heard learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent/Opposite Party. 3. The respondent, herein, namely, Smti. Silpi Sarmah as 1st Party filed a petition before the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (Sadar), Karimganj claiming maintenance from the petitioner husband, the 2nd party of the proceeding. It was contended inter-alia that the marriage between the parties was solemnized about 20 years back, out of their wedlock three children were born. The petitioner/Opposite Party married another woman which compelled the respondent/petitioner to leave her matrimonial home along with her children. Since her husband failed to pay maintenance to her, she has filed the petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. claiming maintenance. The learned SDJM (S), Karimganj vide his judgment dated 29.08.2005 directed the petitioner/Opposite Party to pay maintenance allowance of Rs. 3,000/- per month to the petitioner for herself and her three children w.e.f. the date of passing of the order. 4. The short question which came up before this Court at the time of hearing of the revision is whether the amount of compensation granted in favour of the respondent was exorbitant and whether the petitioner would be able to pay the same? 5. The learned advocate appearing for the revision petitioner submitted that he was a Grade-IV employee of the Railways drawing salary of Rs. 5,000/-/6,000/- per month and it would not be possible for him to pay Rs. 3,000/- to the respondent every month. He further submitted that the petitioner has retired from service and he is now drawing pension. Learned advocate for the respondent on the other hand, submitted that the petitioner was drawing higher salary than what has been stated and after retirement, he must have got the retirement benefit and he is capable of paying maintenance allowance to his wife and children. The petitioner has been paying Rs. 2,000/- per month to the respondent as directed by this Court vide order dated 05.12.2005 pending disposal of this revision. The petitioner has been paying Rs. 2,000/- per month to the respondent as directed by this Court vide order dated 05.12.2005 pending disposal of this revision. The order for maintenance was passed by the learned Trial Court way back in the year 2005. In these days of spiraling prices, it is difficult for the respondent to maintain herself and her three children with the meager amount of Rs. 3,000/- per month. 6. However, I have to consider the pecuniary condition of the petitioner. He is now a pension holder. The exact amount of pension drawn by him is not known but it would not be less than Rs. 10,000/- per month since he was a Grade-IV employee of the Railways. From that amount, he would be able to spare Rs. 3,000/- per month for maintenance of his wife and three children. It is obligatory on his part to pay maintenance to his wife and three children who are unable to maintain themselves. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the financial condition of the petitioner, I find no reason to reduce the amount of maintenance allowance to be paid to the respondent. The learned Magistrate rightly directed the petitioner to pay maintenance allowance of Rs. 3,000/- per month. After considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, I find no reason to interfere with the decision of the learned Courts below. 8. Hence, the revision petition filed by the petitioner stands dismissed. The order of the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (S), Karimganj is affirmed. The petitioner shall pay maintenance allowance of Rs. 3,000/- per month as directed by the learned Magistrate in his order. Send down the LCR to the learned Court below with a copy of the judgment for necessary action.