SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Gau) 88

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
ROBIN PHUKAN, J.
Tarun Chandra Das S/o Late Mohendra Ch. Das – Petitioner
Versus
Bhanjana Kalita D/o Harish Kalita – Respondent
Crl. Pet. No. 589 of 2021
Decided On : 22-02-2022

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. S. Biswas.
For the Respondent: Mr. M. Hussain.

Point of Law: Once such presumption of a lawful marriage commenced to operate in favour of a marriage which has taken place in fact, such a presumption alone would be good enough to entitle the wife to maintain.

Headnote:

Constitution of India,1950 - Article -15(3) and 39 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 125 and 482 – Maintenance Claim - Granting maintenance to wife - Quantum of maintenance granted – Challenged - Before marriage, petitioner told respondent that he has already divorced his first wife and shown her some fake documents - Then being left with no option, respondent tried to adjust herself with petitioner and started leading a conjugal life - Petitioner started picking up quarrel with respondent without any rhyme or reason and started torturing her both physically and mentally and also demanded money on advice of other persons.

Finding of the Court:

Quantum of maintenance - Admittedly, petitioner is serving in Agriculture Department - His monthly salary is about Rs. 40000/, factum of which is not seriously disputed by producing any documents like salary certificate etc - respondent is a house wife having no source of income of her own - Though learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that she has been serving in a school, yet no evidence to that effect is lead by him before the learned court below - Object of this section is not to punish for past, but to prevent vulnerable section of society, who are unable to maintain themselves, so that they are left beggared and destitute on scrap heap of society, and thereby driven to a life of vagrancy, immorality and crime for their sustenance, by compelling those who are capable to support to perform their moral obligation - Court find that conclusion so arrived at by learned courts below are not suffering from any illegality or impropriety requiring this court to interfere with same in exercising its inherent jurisdiction.

Result: Petition and accordingly same stands dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

ROBIN PHUKAN, J.

1. Correctness or otherwise of the judgment and order dated 06.09.2021, passed in Criminal Revision No. 17/2019, by the learned Additional District Judge, Bilasipara by which the learned Additional District Judge, Bilasipara has affirmed the judgment and order dated 04.10.2019 passed in Misc. Case No. 244/2017 by the learned Sub- Divisional Judicial Magistrate (M), Bilasipara under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 granting maintenance to the respondent, namely Smt. Bhanjana Kalita, is put to challenge in this petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. by the petitioner, namely, Shri Tarun Chandra Das.

2. It is to be noted here that vide impugned judgment and order dated 04.10.2019 in Misc. Case No. 244/2017, the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (M), Bilasipara has directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) per month to the respondent under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C.

3. The factual background leading to filing of the present petition is briefly stated as under:

    “The respondent, namely, Smt. Bhanjana Kalita is the wife of the petitioner, namely Shri Tarun Chandra Das. Their marriage was solemnised on 28.04.2017 as per Hindu rights and rituals. After the marriage, the petitioner took the respondent to the house of his sister, namely, Smt. Latika Das and stayed there for a month and thereafter, they shifted to a rented house at Bilasipara and lived there as husband and wife. After two months of living together as husband and wife, the petitioner took the respondent to his own house at Arearjhar. After reaching the house of the petitioner, the respondent got surprised to see the first wife of the petitioner. Before marriage, the petitioner told the respondent that he has already divorced his first wife and shown her some fake documents. Then being left with no option, the respondent tried to adjust herself with the petitioner and started leading a conjugal life. Thereafter, the petitioner started picking up quarrel with the respondent without any rhyme or reason and started torturing her both physically and mentally and also demanded money on the advice of other persons. Then on 06.11.2017, at about 10.45 p.m. the petitioner tried to kill the respondent by wrapping her neck by means of one gamosa, but somehow she managed to escape and reported the matter to her family members. But at the intervention of her family members, she again started to live with the petitioner. Then on 11.11.2017, the petitioner became violent and assaulted her badly and drove her out of the matrimonial house. Though the family members of the respondent tried to settle the matter amicably, yet the same failed to yield any result. The petitioner is a Government employee under the Agriculture Department and posted at Bilasipara Agriculture Office and he is a person of sound health and receives salary of Rs. 40,000/- and he has also landed property. And on the other hand respondent is unable to maintain herself and despite having sufficient means, the petitioner has not been maintaining the respondent. Then being left with no other option, she filed one petition before the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (M), Bilasipara under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Thereafter, hearing both the parties, the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (M), Bilasipara vide order dated 04.10.2019, directed the petitioner to pay maintenance @ Rs. 5,000/- (five thousand). Then being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order of the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (M), Bilasipara dated 04.10.2019 the petitioner preferred one revision petition before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bilasipara, being Crl. Rev. No. 17/2019. Thereafter, vide judgment and order dated 06.09.2021, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bilasipara has affirmed the judgment and order of the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (M), Bilasipara, dated 04.10.2019 passed in Misc. Case No. 244/2017.

            Click Here to Read the rest of this document
            1
            2
            3
            4
            5
            6
            7
            8
            9
            10
            11
            SupremeToday Portrait Ad
            supreme today icon
            logo-black

            An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

            Please visit our Training & Support
            Center or Contact Us for assistance

            qr

            Scan Me!

            India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

            For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

            whatsapp-icon Back to top