Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 795 (GAU)

Hrishikesh Baruah v. State of Assam

2020-12-02

RUMI KUMARI PHUKAN

body2020
ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. D.K. Bordoloi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R.J. Baruah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam and Dr. N. Deka, learned counsel, representing respondent No. 2. 2. The petitioner, herein, has been arrayed as a party respondent in a maintenance case filed by the respondent-wife, vide FC (Crl.) No. 510/2017, pending before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court. During the pendency of the petition, on the prayer made by the respondent-wife, the learned court passed an order of interim maintenance vide order dated 15.11.2018, directing the petitioner, herein, to pay interim maintenance of Rs. 10,000 per month to his wife/respondent No. 2. Assailing the aforesaid order, the present application has been preferred under section 482, Cr.PC, read with sections 397 and 401, Cr.PC, on the ground that the said order is bad in law and, hence, not sustainable and liable to be quashed and set aside. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the various documents annexed to the petition and has submitted that although the respondent-wife has projected herself as dependent on the petitioner and having no income, but the petitioner has sufficient income to maintain herself. By suppressing such income, she has prayed for interim maintenance. It is stated that in his written statement, the petitioner has already narrated all details of the status of the respondent-wife that she is running a coaching centre by name - “Wisdom Academy”. 4. Further, by referring to the documents annexed, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in fact, by filing the petition before the trial court, the petitioner has brought to the notice of the court that the respondent-wife has four bank accounts in her name, two in YES Bank and other two are in the Central Bank and State Bank of India. On the prayer made by the present petitioner, the court also called for the bank statement of the respondent-wife from the aforesaid banks and one of the bank statement from the Central Bank of India was received and the statement of account from the remaining bank was not received. 5. On the prayer made by the present petitioner, the court also called for the bank statement of the respondent-wife from the aforesaid banks and one of the bank statement from the Central Bank of India was received and the statement of account from the remaining bank was not received. 5. Further, on the prayer of the present petitioner, trade licence of Wisdom Academy was also called for by the court by order dated 6.10.2018 and fixed the case for documents and hearing on the prayer of interim maintenance and evidence of petitioner (respondent-wife). And on 15.11.2018, the learned trial court has passed the order for interim maintenance by holding that the petitioner has no source of income and the petitioner/husband is legally bound to maintain his wife and directed the petitioner to pay interim maintenance of Rs. 10,000 per month to his wife w.e.f. the date of the order. It is also noted in the order that documents, which had been called for have not yet been received/awaited. Now, it has been challenged that such an order is void in law, inasmuch, the same has been passed without appreciating the case of the petitioner as well as the documents referred into. Several documents have been placed into like the RTI Report, which reflects that the respondent-wife is the registered owner of the Wisdom Academy, having trade licence in her name. Statement of account of the YES Bank (which has already been received by the court) has also been placed before the trial court, which reveals that the respondent-wife has good amount of money in her account with active transaction. The learned counsel for the respondent has, however, submitted that the respondent-wife is not the owner of the Wisdom Academy and her father only runs the said Institute. As regards the bank account, it is stated that the father of the respondent No. 2 deposited cash money prior to her marriage and even after her marriage, her parents deposited certain amounts of money for her study and other purposes. In this respect, affidavit has been filed by the respondent's side. 6. I have gone through the documents on record and also the impugned order, and considered the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties. 7. In this respect, affidavit has been filed by the respondent's side. 6. I have gone through the documents on record and also the impugned order, and considered the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties. 7. After going through the pleadings of the parties filed before the trial court as well as the various order(s) passed by the trial court, it reflects that the petitioner, herein, raised objection against the interim prayer so made by the respondent-wife, including the documents that the petitioner has different bank accounts. Facts to be noted that the learned trial court although called for the aforesaid statement of accounts and the report about the Wisdom Academy, to ascertain the income of the respondent-wife, but abruptly has passed the impugned order without waiting for those documents to ascertain the genuineness of her claim that she has no income of her own. The respondent-wife nowhere denied about such bank accounts in her name. In view of such bold assertion made by the petitioner/husband about having income on the part of his wife-respondent No. 2, it was the bounden duty of the learned trial court to ascertain the said aspect. In such backdrop of the matter, the finding of the trial court that the petitioner has no income is apparently, not correct, which has crept into illegality, calling for interference of this court. The case of both the parties has to be appreciated in proper perspective prior to passing of an order by the court of law. Without ascertaining the truth or otherwise of the case of a party, no relief can be granted, because justice is not a one-sided affair. 8. Having regard to all the materials on record, the impugned order is hereby quashed and set aside, with a direction to the learned trial court to decide the matter afresh, after hearing both the parties as well as the documents referred into. 9. Both the parties will appear before the learned trial court (or by their representative counsel) on 19.12.2020 and would press the matter and the learned trial court will decide the same in accordance with law. 10. Accordingly, the criminal petition stands disposed of.