Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1246 (GAU)

Hanif Ali v. Musstt Chantara Begum

2019-11-19

HITESH KUMAR SARMA

body2019
JUDGMENT : Hitesh Kumar Sarma, J. This is a Criminal Revision Petition, filed under Sections 397/401 read with Section 482 of the Cr.PC, challenging the legality, propriety and correctness of the judgment and order, dated 30.05.2009, passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (M), Bajali, Pathsala in M.R. Case No. 7/2009 enhancing the monthly maintenance allowance of the sole respondent from Rs. 500/- to Rs. 800/- per month. 2. I have heard R Ali, learned counsel assisted by Mr. HA Ahmed, learned counsel for the revision petitioner. None appears for the sole respondent on call. 3. I have also perused the records of the learned court below as well as the impugned judgment and order. 4. In view of the fact that this maintenance proceeding is pending since 2009 and the petitioner is ready for hearing, I have heard him, as indicated above, as well as perused the records. 5. The petitioner is the husband of the sole respondent is not a disputed fact. In a proceeding under Section 125 of the Cr.PC in M.R. Case No. 04/2002, the learned Magistrate granted maintenance allowance of Rs. 500/- per month to the sole respondent, vide order, dated 02.08.2003. Thereafter, on the application for enhancement under Section 127 of the Cr.PC, after hearing both sides, the learned court below enhanced the maintenance allowance from Rs. 500/- to Rs. 800/- per month, vide order, dated 30.05.2009. The enhancement order was made after about 6 (six) years from the date of the original order granting maintenance allowance and an amount of Rs. 300/- was only enhanced from the original amount, making the total amount to Rs. 800/- per month by the impugned order. 6. On perusal of the materials on record, source of income of the petitioner and considering other allied factors like the sky high price rise of the essential commodities and the minimum requirement of the sole respondent to keep her body and soul intact, it does not appear to this court that the enhancement of Rs. 300/- after 6 (six) years from the original amount of Rs. 500/- is not on the higher side and rather appears to be reasonable. 7. The grounds stated in the impugned order for enhancement of the maintenance allowance is the increase in the income of the 2nd party from the date of the original order. 300/- after 6 (six) years from the original amount of Rs. 500/- is not on the higher side and rather appears to be reasonable. 7. The grounds stated in the impugned order for enhancement of the maintenance allowance is the increase in the income of the 2nd party from the date of the original order. It has also come out from his evidence that he has a 2nd wife to maintain, meaning thereby, that he is able to provide maintenance to more than one wife. 8. Considering the above, it does not appear to this court that there is any illegality or impropriety in the impugned judgment requiring interference by this court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. 9. Therefore, this criminal revision petition stands dismissed. 10. Send back the LCR along with a copy of this judgment.