JUDGMENT :

1. This is a Criminal Revision Petition, filed under Sections 397/401 of the Cr.PC, challenging the legality, propriety and correctness of the judgment and order, dated 08.06.2010 passed in C.R. Case No. 32/2009 by the learned Sessions Judge, Nalbari which was against the judgment and order, dated 31.08.2009 passed in Misc. Case No. 175(M)/2008 under Section 125 of the Cr.PC by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nalbari awarding maintenance allowance of Rs. 500 per month to the respondent- wife.

2. The learned revisional court, vide the judgment, referred to above, enhanced the maintenance allowance of Rs. 500 per month to Rs. 1,000/- per month to be paid by the petitioner to his wife-respondent.

3. I have heard Mr. MU Mondal, learned counsel for the revision petitioner as well as Mr. PP Dutta, learned Amicus Curiae, who was appointed as Amicus Curiae vide the order, dated 01.02.2019, in view of the absence of the learned counsel for the petitioner on that day and also considering that this is an old pending case. This court also considered that revision petition has to be heard on merit. Accordingly, the learned Amicus Curiae was appointed. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner appears today and has made his submission. I have also taken assistance of the learned Amicus Curiae. I have also heard Mr. BB Gogoi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State respondent.

4. The fact of the case is that the respondent-wife initiated a proceeding under Section 125 of the Cr.PC against the petitioner claiming monthly maintenance of Rs. 2,000/- for herself and her 2 (two) children on the ground that the 2nd party subjected her to torture, both physically and mentally, even when she was pregnant carrying the 2nd child in her womb and was driven out of his house. But, thereafter she was taken back on a settlement between the parties and she stayed there for some time with the petitioner and then she was again subjected to torture resulting in her leaving the matrimonial home again. The respondent- wife claimed the income of the petitioner to be Rs. 5,000/- per month as driver. The petitioner as 2nd party in the aforesaid proceeding filed his written statement and contested the proceeding denying the allegations made in the petition by the respondent-wife.

5. I have perused the judgment of the learned trial court as well as the learned revisional court of the Sessions Judge.

6. It deserves mention here that although maintenance was claimed for the respondent wife and her 2 (two) children yet the learned court below granted maintenance allowance only to the wife in view of the fact that her 2 (two) children are being maintained by the petitioner keeping them with him.

7. On perusal of the judgment of the learned trial court and the evidence available in the record of the learned trial court, it appears that the respondent-wife is the legally married wife of the petitioner which fact is not disputed. There is also no dispute that the petitioner fathered the 2 (two) children through the respondent-wife.

8. The learned court below after examining the evidence of the respondent-wife’s side as petitioner and also the evidence led by the petitioner as opposite party in the proceeding under Section 125 of the Cr.PC and on hearing both the sides, passed the impugned judgment granting maintenance allowance of Rs. 500/- to the respondent-wife to be paid by the petitioner monthly. Against this judgment of the learned trial court, the aforesaid criminal revision petition was filed before the learned Sessions Judge challenging the legality, propriety and correctness of the said judgment and order. The learned Sessions Judge, however, not only affirmed the decision rendered by the learned trial court in the judgment and order dated 31.08.2009 in respect of entitlement of the wife-respondent but even went one step further to enhance the monthly maintenance allowance from Rs. 500/- to Rs. 1,000/-.

9. The first q