Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 653 (GAU)

Bipul Bezbaruah v. Padumi Roy

2019-05-24

HITESH KUMAR SARMA

body2019
JUDGMENT : 1. This criminal revision petition under Sections 397/401 of the Cr.PC has been filed challenging the legality, propriety and correctness of the judgment and order, dated 06.02.2018, passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Barpeta in M.R. Case No. 326/2014 granting maintenance allowance of Rs. 5,000/- per month to the respondent from the date of filing of the petition under Section 125 of the Cr.PC. 2. Heard Mr. A Ganguly, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. N Deka, learned counsel for the sole respondent. 3. The fact of the case is that the respondent/wife initiated a proceeding under Section 125 of the Cr.PC against the petitioner before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Barpeta on the ground that the 2nd party has refused and neglected to maintain her although she is the legally married wife of the petitioner. She was also assaulted by the petitioner and subjected to torture. She has no source of income of her own. According to her, the petitioner has sufficient income to provide maintenance to her. The petitioner as respondent contested the aforesaid proceeding under Section 125 of the Cr.PC by filing written statement, denying the allegations of subjecting his wife/respondent to torture as well as denying his income as stated by the wife/respondent. According to the petitioner, the respondent/wife is not entitled to maintenance allowance. 4. After examining the petition and the written statement of the respective parties, and the evidence led by them, the learned court below finally decided the matter in favour of granting maintenance allowance to the respondent/wife @ of Rs. 5,000/- per month w.e.f. the date of filing of the 125 Cr.PC proceeding, i.e., 21.06.2014. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred to the judgment passed by some other courts in respect of some criminal cases between them in which the petitioner was acquitted inspite of the allegations of torture by his wife/respondent. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the maintenance allowance granted is on the higher side considering the income of the petitioner, as the petitioner earns a meager amount by selling tea in the tea stall own by him. 7. I have examined the impugned judgment as well as the submission made by the respective learned counsel. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the maintenance allowance granted is on the higher side considering the income of the petitioner, as the petitioner earns a meager amount by selling tea in the tea stall own by him. 7. I have examined the impugned judgment as well as the submission made by the respective learned counsel. 8. It deserves a mention here that the learned counsel for the respondent has resisted to the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the petitioner is bound to maintain his wife and he has sufficient income to maintain her. There is no reasonable ground to refuse the maintenance to the respondent/wife 9. It appears from the impugned judgment that the learned court below has discussed the relevant evidence with respect to the issue involved in the case and has arrived at a conclusion to grant maintenance allowance of Rs. 5,000/- per month to the respondent/wife. 10. This court on examination of the materials including the reasons as cited in the judgment impugned herein found the judgment to be based on evidence on record requiring no interference. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the arrear amount required to be paid by the petitioner to the respondent/wife be exempted from payment considering the fact that the petitioner is not able to pay the same due to his poor financial status. The learned counsel for the respondent has opposed to such prayer. However, on this point, this court has interacted with both the learned counsel for the parties, and on instructions, the learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that if 50% of the arrear amount due to be paid to the respondent/wife by the petitioner is exempted, the respondent/wife has no objection. 11. That being so, while upholding the judgment of the learned court below in respect of the maintenance allowance, this court directs realization of 50% of the arrear maintenance allowance in 6 (six) equal installments along with the regular monthly maintenance allowance. 12. In view of the above, the judgment of the learned trial court needs no interference except in respect of the arrear maintenance allowance, as indicated above. 13. This petition stands disposed of accordingly.