JUDGMENT :

Arup Kumar Goswami, J.

1. Heard Mr. M.U. Mondal, learned counsel for the appellant Also heard Mr. K.P. Pathak, learned counsel, appearing for all the respondents.

2. This appeal is filed under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 against the judgment dated 12.04.2018 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Barpeta in connection with F.C. (Crl.) No. 89/2019, registered on the basis of an application filed by the respondent No. 1 under Section 125 Cr.PC.

3. By the said judgment, the learned Trial Court granted maintenance @ Rs. 7,000/- per month to the respondent No. 1, who is the wife of the appellant and Rs. 5,000/-, each, to the minor children of the couple, in all totalling Rs. 17,000/- per month.

4. Since the pleadings and evidence tendered in course of the proceedings before the learned Court below are available on record, with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, we have taken up the appeal for disposal at the admission stage itself.

5. The appellant and the respondent No. 1 were married on 10.12.2001 according to Hindu ritual and rites and a daughter, Anoushka Nath, and a son, Pravanjal Nath, were born out of the wedlock. At the time of filing the application under Section 125 Cr.PC, the daughter was studying in Class-DC and was aged about 13 years and the son was studying in Class-V and he was 10 years old. The respondent No. 1 is working as a temporary Assistant Teacher in Marian School, Barpeta with a monthly salary of Rs. 5,100/- and the children are students of the same school. It is stated that the appellant is a wealthy businessman having two garment shops in the Municipal Market of Barpeta Road, 15 Bighas of cultivable land at Baxirhat, West Bengal and a plot of land measuring 1 Bigha 4 Katha 18½ Lechas, Dag No. 1195 of KP Patta No. 93 situated at Barpeta Road Town and has monthly income of Rs. 1,00,000/-. It is alleged that the appellant, who is a highly temperamental person, had subjected her to physical torture and had demanded huge amount of money from her parents and after the second child was born, she was driven out of her matrimonial house as a result of which she had to live in her parents' house up to May, 2010. Though she had come back to the matrimonial house, the demand of money continued along with physical and mental torture, which were borne by her for the sake of the children but the last straw came when she was mercilessly beaten up on 30.10.2016 and had to be rescued by her father and since then, she is staying along with her children in the house of her parents. By the said application, the wife prayed for Rs. 10,000/- per month for herself and Rs. 10,000/-, each, for both the minor children, interim maintenance of Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. 10,000/- as litigation expenses.

6. A written statement was filed denying the allegations of torture and demand of money. The statements with regard to he being a wealthy person with two garment shops and having two plots of land, as indicated in the application and that his income is Rs. 1,00,000/-, are denied. He admitted that he has a small garment shop at Barpeta Road but what is his income is not disclosed. He had stated that his father expired after a couple of months of his marriage and that he has to take care of his 90 year old bedridden mother and for her nursing, two paid ladies had been engaged. It is stated that the wife lived a life of her own and had started "disobedience" towards the husband as well as his mother and in doing so, she was instigated by her father, who also sometimes tortured him. With regard to the fateful day, i.e. on 30.10.2016, it is stated that in his absence, his wife called her father and he took his wife and the children with all her belongings, ornaments, etc.

7. During the course of the proceedings, the respondent No. 1 examined herself as PW-1 and had also adduced the evidence of her father as PW-2. The appellant also adduced his evidence as DW-1 and had examined another witn