JUDGMENT :

JAY SENGUPTA, J.

1. Re: CRAN/01/2021 – Condonation of Delay

2. In view of the explanation provided on behalf of the petitioner and after hearing the learned counsels appearing for the parties, I condone the delay of 176 days in preferring the revision petition.

3. Accordingly, CRAN/01/2021 is allowed.

4. Re: CRR/11/2021 – Revision Petition

5. This application is directed against the judgment and order dated 21st December, 2020 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Port Blair in Misc. Case No.42 of 2018 under section 125 of the Code. A sum of Rs.7500/-was awarded as maintenance allowance per month to the present opposite party with effect from the date of application i.e. 21.06.2018.

6. Mr. Chezian, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner-husband, submits as follows. In her cross-examination, the opposite party-wife admitted that she had filed a suit for divorce. The son of the couple was a student of graduation. The husband was paying his hostel charges. The wife further admitted that she had a furniture business. However, she claimed that she had prayed for suspension of license for the furniture business that once ran with four or five employees. The wife further admitted that she was collecting rent of Rs.5000/-per month from the house of her husband. She also admitted that she was having another shop room, which was let out. The petitioner-husband is a government servant and is working as Mazdoor under the Forest Department. As on 2017, his gross salary was about Rs.41,000/-per month. Although the husband denied that he had built a RCC house, he had admitted that he was having a car and a bike. The wife-opposite party left the petitioner without any just cause. In fact, she was earning sufficiently in her business as also by letting out two shop rooms. Since the wife was having sufficient income to maintain herself, there was no question of husband paying her maintenance. Besides, there was no reason recorded in the impugned order for granting maintenance allowance from the date of application. On this reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Jaiminiben Hirenbhai Vyas and another vs. Hirenbhai Rameshchandra Vyas and another, reported at (2015) 2 SCC 385.

7. Mr. Singha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the wife-opposite party, submits as follows. The respondent opposite party is a 53 years old lady. Although maintenance allowance was awarded with effect from 2018, till date no sum has been paid. It is the case of the wife-opposite party that the petitioner-husband used to inflict torture upon her. He also had an illicit affair with his paramour. When the wife objected, she was assaulted. She had to lodge a complaint before the police in this regard. As was rightly pointed out by the learned Trial Judge, since the husband’s income was shown as around Rs.41,000/-as on 30.05.2017, at present such income must have gone up to the range of Rs. 65,000/. The husband was earning handsomely and had taken a lone of Rs.6,00,000/-as would be evident from his GPF withdrawals, for constructing an RCC building on his land. It is true that the petitioner gets a sum of Rs.5000/-at present as rent from a shop room. However, she, in turn, has to pay a sum of Rs.800/-to the Gram Panchayat per month as rent. She suffers from several ailments and has to incur expenditure in this regard. Even if one considers the rule of 1/5th to 1/3rd of the husband’s income payable as maintenance allowance, a sum of Rs.7500/-per month is not much compared to the income that the husband is enjoying. As regards the decision relied on behalf of the petitioner, the facts are quite distinguishable in the present case. In the other case, interim maintenance had been granted. However, in the instant case, the petitioner-husband did not pay a single penny as maintenance allowance during the pendency of the proceeding.

8. I have heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the