The central legal point established in the judgment is the responsibility of an able-bodied husband to maintain his wife and children, as outlined in Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. and Section 23 of HAMA, and the objective of granting maintenance to prevent destitution or vagrancy of the dependent spouse.

JUDGMENT

Shampa Dutt (Paul), J. - The present revisional application has been preferred against an order dated 14.06.2019 passed in Misc. Case no. 2050 of 2016 by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Court, Kalyani.

2. The petitioner's case is that an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was filed by her in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kalyani against her husband stating therein that the petitioner's marriage was solemnized with the opposite party on 13.05.2001. The opposite party has a grocery shop at 12 Harish Neogi Road, Murari Pukur Lane, Ultadanga, Kolkata-67 by the name of 'Laxmi Bhandar' and has an income of Rs. 70,000/ per month. The opposite party/husband used to inflict mental and physical torture upon the petitioner since their marriage. On 24.06.2014 the petitioner was driven out from her matrimonial home 'Mayurakhi apartment', 121/79 Rahara Madhyapara, P.O. Rahara, P.S. Khardah, Dist. North 24 Parganas and since then has been living at her father's place at Kalyani and passing her days in distress as she has no permanent income, thus facing extreme poverty. In spite of promising to pay some money for maintenance, the opposite party/ husband has failed to do so.

3. Initially an order of maintenance of Rs. 2000 per month was allowed by the learned Magistrate on 24.11.2017, from the date of filing of the case (23.12.2012).

4. The petitioner/wife then preferred a criminal revision before the High Court (CRR 187 of 2018). The High Court on 08.04.2019 disposed of the matter directing the learned Magistrate to take into consideration the facts as stated by the High Court in its order and to reconsider the said order. The learned Magistrate then reconsidered the said matter of maintenance as directed by the High Court and passed an order on 14.06.2019 enhancing the amount of maintenance to Rs. 3500 per month. The present revisional application is against the said order.

5. Mr. D.K. Adhikary learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the opposite party/husband is an able-bodied person and has sufficient means (grocery shop) to maintain his wife. It is further submitted that the learned Magistrate erroneously calculated the daily expense of the petitioner wife to be Rs. 90.60 paisa and the total monthly cost to be Rs. 2718 and has erroneously come to the conclusion of providing a sum of Rs. 3500 per month as maintenance, which is unreasonable and insufficient. The said order is not in accordance with law and against the principle of natural justice and has caused severe miscarriage of justice to the petitioner/wife. It is further submitted that the opposite part/husband in CRR 48 of 2018 (filed by him) admitted that the petitioner is his legally married wife. He has also stated therein that he has a grocery shop and has no other dependent. The learned Magistrate has failed to take all these facts into consideration and erroneously passed the order of maintenance under revision herein and as such the said order being against the principle of natural justice and passed without due consideration of the present position of law and also the facts and circumstances in proper legal interpretation has passed the erroneous order which is liable to be set aside failing which the petitioner will suffer irreparable loss and injury.

6. Heard. Perused the materials on record. Considered.

7. The opposite party no. 1/Madhusudan Das/husband has failed to appear in this case and deny the case of the petitioner/wife as made out. In spite of due service the opposite party no. 2 has chosen not to contest the claim of the petitioner/wife.

8. The revision is limited to the quantum of maintenance vis-vis the income of the able-bodied husband. There is no materials on record to show that the husband is not physically capable of having any income. It is on record that the opposite party/husband has a grocery shop at Ultadanga, a prime location in Kolkata, by the name of 'Laxmi Bhan