JUDGMENT This criminal revision petition under Section 397 Cr.P.C read with Section 19 of the Family Courts Act,1984 has been filed by the petitioner-husband challenging the judgment and order dated 12.03.2020 passed by the Family Court, Sonamura in Criminal Misc. 52 of 2018 whereby the Family Court granted monthly maintenance allowance of a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards maintenance of the respondent-wife and her minor daughter and directed the petitioner-husband to remit the money to his wife within 7th day of each month by money order. [2] By means of filing this criminal revision petition, petitioner-husband has challenged the impugned judgment of the Family Court mainly on the following grounds: (i) The Family Court did not appreciate the fact that the respondent-wife could not adduce any documentary proof to prove the income of the petitioner. Without ascertaining his income, Family Court erroneously passed the judgment directing him to pay a huge sum of monthly maintenance allowance to his wife and daughter. (ii) The Family Court did not appreciate the fact that the respondent-wife had income from the beauty parlour owned by her and she was not unable to maintain herself. (iii) The Family Court did not appreciate the contention of the husband that he lost his eye sight due to heart attack and his earning capacity was also reduced due to such illness. (iv) Family Court did not also consider the fact that the wife had withdrawn herself from the company of her husband without any reasonable ground and despite his earnest efforts to bring her back she declined to come back to her matrimonial home. [3] Heard the petitioner-in-person. Heard Mr. Sudipta Shekher Debnath, learned advocate appearing for the respondent-wife and also heard Mr. S. Debnath, learned Addl. P.P appearing for the state-respondent. [4] Before I advert to the contentions of the counsel of the parties, it would be appropriate to lay the bare facts which are essential for disposal of the petition: Smti. Pritilata Barman, wife of the petitioner filed a petition under Section 125 Cr. P.C supported by an affidavit on 30.07.2018 in the Court of the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate at Sonamura. She claimed monthly maintenance allowance of Rs.60,000/- from her husband towards maintenance of herself and her minor daughter @Rs.30,000/- for each of them. The matter was first heard by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonamura. P.C supported by an affidavit on 30.07.2018 in the Court of the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate at Sonamura. She claimed monthly maintenance allowance of Rs.60,000/- from her husband towards maintenance of herself and her minor daughter @Rs.30,000/- for each of them. The matter was first heard by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonamura. After the Family Court was established at Sonamura, the case was tried and disposed of by the Family Court. The wife stated that her marriage was solemnised on 19.09.2013. During her marriage her parents gave valuables like furniture, gold and untensils. 3/4 months after marriage her in-laws including her mother-in-law and sister-in-law started torturing her at her matrimonial home. Her husband also joined them. She used to work like a slave in her matrimonial home. Still her in-laws were not happy who subjected her to various kinds of cruelty. Even though her husband used to earn Rs.2.5 lakhs from his industry producing jam, jelly, pickles, sauce etc., he did not meet any of her demands. Six months after her marriage she was severely beaten by her husband and father-in-law. However, in the midst of differences, she conceived and gave birth to a daughter on 06.01.2015. After the birth of their daughter, her husband demanded a sum of Rs.1,40,000/- and asked her to bring the money from her parents. Since she failed to fulfil his demand she was tortured by her husband. On 12/12/2015 she called her parents after she was physically tortured by her husband. Her parents came and took her back to her parental home along with her daughter. Since then, her husband never met her. He did not ever provide any money to her for her maintenance. She therefore, approached the Court seeking maintenance allowance @ Rs.60,000/- per month for herself and her daughter. [5] In his written statement of defence, the husband denied all allegations of his wife. He also denied the statement of his wife with regard to his monthly income. It was asserted by him in his written statement of defence that most of the time after marriage his wife used to live at her parental home. She was always reluctant in discharging her matrimonial obligations. Even after the birth of their daughter, she lived at her parental home for about 3/4 months. Despite repeated request of her husband, she declined to come back. She was always reluctant in discharging her matrimonial obligations. Even after the birth of their daughter, she lived at her parental home for about 3/4 months. Despite repeated request of her husband, she declined to come back. In February, 2016, the husband met his wife at her parental home and earnestly requested her to come back along with their daughter, but she refused. On various other dates thereafter, he met his wife to bring her back. Every time she refused to come back. He also offered money to his wife several times. She never accepted his offer. As a result of her continuous desertion, he filed a petition for divorce in the Family Court at Agartala on the ground of cruelty and desertion which was registered as TS(Divorce) 129 of 2018 in the said Family Court. The husband further asserted that since his wife was living separately without any justifiable reason, she was not entitled to any maintenance allowance under Section 125 Cr. P.C. The learned Judge, Family Court, Sonamura took up the following points for determination. (i) Whether Smt. Pritilata Barman is the legally married wife of Debashish Das? (ii) Whether the husband has refused to maintain his wife and daughter despite having sufficient means? (iii) Whether the wife and daughter are entitled to maintenance allowance? [6] In the course of trial, wife adduced the evidence of herself as PW-1, her father, Haradhan Barman as PW-2 and her neighbour Sri Bimal Nama as PW-3. The husband on the other hand examined himself as OPW-1. [7] On appreciation of evidence the Family Court held that the wife left her matrimonial home under compelling circumstances and her husband refused to provide maintenance allowance to her and their daughter despite having sufficient income. Therefore, the learned Judge granted a sum of Rs.15,000/- for their maintenance and directed the husband to remit the money to her address by money order. Relevant extract of the judgment of the Family Court is as under: “*****Now, it is an undisputable fact that a husband and a father have got the responsibility of maintaining his wife and children. This responsibility can not at all be shrugged off by the OP under any pretext. Regarding the evidence of the OP side, it can be well concluded that the OP side could not state anything cogent which completely negates the evidence of the petitioner’s side. This responsibility can not at all be shrugged off by the OP under any pretext. Regarding the evidence of the OP side, it can be well concluded that the OP side could not state anything cogent which completely negates the evidence of the petitioner’s side. Therefore, considering the aforesaid evidence on record, it appears to me from the evidence on record that the petitioner wife was tortured by her husband and inlaws and finally she was compelled to take shelter in her parental house is not at all unbelievable considering the facts and circumstances of this case. It also appears that the petitioner is the legally married wife of the O.P and the O.P having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain his wife and minor daughter, for which the petitioner is presently staying in her parental house along with her minor daughter in financially strained condition. Considering the entire evidence on record it appears that the O.P did not look after the petitioner and her minor daughter nor paid any maintenance to maintain their livelihood after 23.04.2018. But it is also a fact that no prudent man could deny the fact that the duty and responsibility for maintaining his wife and children do rests on the shoulders of the husband and he cannot being an able bodied man under any circumstances shrug of his said responsibility. It also remains a fact that the quantum of maintenance amount is to be determined in consideration of the financial capacity of the husband and in this case, it has appeared on evidence that the monthly income of the OP husband is Rs.2 or 2 and 1/2 lakhs. The petitioner wife (PW1) has deposed before the Court that she prays for granting maintenance of Rs.17,000/- in total for herself and her daughter. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the totality of the matter, it appears to me that an amount of Rs.15,000/-(fifteen thousand) only in total for the petitioner wife and the minor daughter of the petitioner and the OP will be just and fair to maintain the livelihood of the petitioner and her minor daughter. Hence, all the points for determination are decided in favour of the petitioner and against the O.P. O R D E R 8. Hence, all the points for determination are decided in favour of the petitioner and against the O.P. O R D E R 8. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances the O.P. namely Sri Debasish Das is hereby directed to pay a maintenance allowance of Rs.15,000/-(fifteen thousand) only in total to the petitioner wife and her minor daughter from the date of passing of this order. The O.P. is further directed to pay the amount of Rs.15,000/-(fifteen thousand) only as maintenance allowance to the petitioners per month within the 7th day of every English calendar month by way of money order after remitting the cost of money order.*****” [8] The petitioner has appeared-in-person before this Court. It is contended by him that he has lost his eye sight as a result of severe heart attack and now he cannot move without escort. It is submitted by him that he has a small business at home from which he earns less than Rs.25,000/- per month. According to him, he is quite unable to pay the sum of Rs.15,000/- per month to his wife for maintenance. He contends that he is still willing to get back his wife and daughter even though he has filed a divorce petition against his wife. It is also contended by him that his wife has a beauty parlour near her home from which she earns a good sum of money which is sufficient for her maintenance. The husband, however, agrees to pay Rs.10,000/- per month for maintenance of his wife and daughter. [9] Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent-wife submits that the statement of the petitioner-husband with regard to his income is absolutely false. According to learned counsel, the husband still owns an industry which produces jam, jelly, pickles, sauce etc. and from the said industry he earns huge amount of money. Learned counsel however, submits that the wife would agree to a monthly maintenance allowance of Rs.10,000/- provided the maintenance allowance is paid regularly. [10] In terms of the agreement between the parties, the petitioner-husband is directed to pay Rs.10,000/- per month to his wife for maintenance of his wife and daughter by depositing the money within the 7th day of every month in her individual bank account. The arrear with effect from 12.03.2020 till 31.08.2021 will be paid to the petitioner in 10((ten) instalments within 8(eight) months. The arrear with effect from 12.03.2020 till 31.08.2021 will be paid to the petitioner in 10((ten) instalments within 8(eight) months. The monthly maintenance allowance for the month of September, 2021 be deposited in the bank account of the respondent-wife within 7th day of October, 2021 and likewise in the forthcoming months. The amount already paid shall be adjusted. The Family Court, Sonamura will ensure enforcement of the order in accordance with law. [11] In terms of the above, the revision petition is disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Send back the LCR along with a copy of the judgment.