Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 214 (GAU)

TOUFIQUL RAHMAN v. JUSHNA BEGUM

2018-02-05

HITESH KUMAR SARMA

body2018
JUDGMENT & ORDER : 1. This is a revision petition filed under Sections 401/397 of the Cr.P.C., challenging the legality, propriety and correctness of the judgment and order passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (S), Dibrugarh in Misc. Case No. 20/2006 under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. 2. The fact leading to the filing of the petition under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. by the present respondent is that she is the legally married wife of the present petitioner and she was neglected and refused to maintain by the petitioner/opposite party of the aforesaid Misc. 3. The learned Trial Court, after recording evidence of both the parties and after appreciation of the evidence on record, granted maintenance allowance to the petitioner and her two minor children @ Rs.2000/- per month to the present respondent and Rs.1000/- each per month to her two minor children, vide judgment and order dated 08.04.2008. Thereafter, aggrieved by the said decision rendered in the aforesaid Misc. Case by the learned Trial Court, the present revision petitioner has approached this Court, inter-alia, on the grounds that the learned Trial Court did not appreciate the evidence in its proper perspective and arrived at a wrong conclusion that the present petitioner had refused and neglected to maintain his wife/ present respondent and her minor children and that the maintenance allowance granted is not based on proper appreciation of the evidence on income. 4. It has come out from the materials on record that the present petitioner married a 2nd wife claiming that he had divorced his 1st wife/present respondent which was found not to be correct on appreciation of the evidence on record by the learned Trial Court. 5. I have perused the evidence on record as well as the order impugned herein and found that the learned Trial Court has discussed the evidence and found that the present respondent is entitled to maintenance. The fact remains that Section 125 Cr.P.C. provides for maintenance even for divorcee and therefore, without going to the validity or otherwise of the divorcee, as provided in Section 125 Cr.P.C. itself, the present respondent/wife, even if a divorcee, shall be entitled to maintenance. The necessary ingredients for granting maintenance, under Section 125 Cr.P.C., is refusal or negligence to maintain the wife and children etc., i.e., the present respondent herein and her minor children. 6. The necessary ingredients for granting maintenance, under Section 125 Cr.P.C., is refusal or negligence to maintain the wife and children etc., i.e., the present respondent herein and her minor children. 6. The evidence on record makes it succinctly clear that the present respondent is entitled to maintenance in view of the fact that she was neglected/refused by the present petitioner, so far maintenance is concerned along with her minor children which has been thoroughly discussed by the learned Trial Court in the judgment and order impugned herein. So far the amount of maintenance is concerned, it has been submitted, during the course of the hearing, by the learned counsel for the petitioner that at the relevant point of time, the present petitioner was earning an amount of Rs.9000/- per month, and therefore, the amount of maintenance granted, i.e., 4000/- per month, in total, was in the higher side as the present petitioner is required to maintain his 2nd wife also. The fact that he earned Rs. 9000/- per month and out of the said amount, an amount of Rs.4000/- is ordered to be spared for 3 persons, i.e., his wife and two minor children does not appear to be high in the considered view of this Court, and rather, the fact that the present petitioner has married a 2nd wife speaks volume of his ability to maintain his 1st wife and children. 7. That being so, this Court does not find any such illegality or impropriety in the order passed by the learned Trial Court granting maintenance as aforesaid necessitating interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional power. Therefore, this revision petition is dismissed on merit. 8. Send down the LCR along with a copy of this judgment. 9. Interim order passed earlier in this case stands vacated.