Back
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
RUMI KUMARI PHUKAN, J.
Bulbuli Saikia W/o Sri Jadav Saikia – Appellant
Versus
Jadav Saikia S/o Late Tulsi Saikia – Respondent
Crl.Rev.P. 234 of 2020
Decided on : 17-05-2022
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sections 397, 401, 125, 125(4) – Robbery, or dacoity, with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt – Maintenance is a statutory right, which the legislature has framed irrespective of nationality, cast or creed of the parties - Maintenance is a statutory right, which the legislature has framed irrespective of nationality, cast or creed of the parties [Para 18,19]
Finding of the court: Going by provisions of Act and pleadings and evidence on record and legal proposition, it can be held that respondent/husband has not been able to prove that he has no sufficient means to discharge his obligation and that he did not neglect or refused to maintain his wife, whereas petitioner/wife has been able to prove that there is neglect on part of respondent/husband to maintain his legally married wife – Accordingly finding of learned trial Court is hereby quashed and set aside, with a direction to pass a fresh judgment by awarding adequate maintenance, after hearing both the parties, at earliest and preferably within two months from date of appearance of parties – Respondent/husband will produce relevant salary certificate before trial Court, at time of hearing and learned trial Court can taken notice of status and income of husband, while deciding quantum of maintenance.
Results: Ordered Accordingly.
JUDGEMENT :
Heard Mr. A. Ganguly, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/wife. Also heard Mr. R.K. Bhatra, learned counsel representing the respondent/husband.
2. By filing this petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the CrPC, the petitioner has challenged the judgment dated 26.09.2019, passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (M), Majuli in Jorhat, in Misc. Case No.12/2017, filed by the petitioner/wife, under Section 125 of the CrPC, rejecting her prayer for maintenance by the impugned judgment.
3. The case of the parties in short is that the petitioner/wife was married with the respondent/husband on 10.03.2016, as per the social rites and ritual. Exactly after 3 months of their marriage, the family members of the respondent started to torture the petitioner, both physically and mentally, demanding 5 lakhs as dowry but as she could not fulfill their demand, the respondent abused the petitioner. The further case of the petitioner is that the sister-in-law of the respondent, namely Dipamoni Saikia used to abuse the petitioner by using filthy language every time she leaves/enters and assault her by pulling her hair, prevent her from talking with her husband/respondent by entering into their room, in absence of the respondent and assaulted her for talking with the respondent/husband.
4. On 09.01.2017, at around 8 A.M., said Smti Dipamoni Saikia entered her room with a “dao” in her hand in the absence of her husband and seeing that the petitioner is talking with her husband and physically assaulted the respondent/wife and also threatened her with dire consequences and forced her to sign an agreement written on a stamp paper, compelling her to write as per her direction. The petitioner/wife informed the matter to the respondent/husband but he did not pay any heed to the same. Being aggrieved by the behavior of her husband, she lodged an FIR in the Garmur Police Station, which was registered as the Garmur P.S. Case No.01/2017 but on assurance of the family members of the respondent that they will not harass her in future, she compromised the case and the respondent agreed to let her stay at her parental house until completion of her studies and also agreed to bear her educational expenses. But the respondent never provided any maintenance nor contacted with her any more, whereas the petitioner does not have any income of her own, it became very difficult on her part to bear her daily expenses and her studies also suffered a lot. On the other hand, respondent/husband is serving an assistant teacher in a L.P. School and his monthly salary is Rs. 22,000/-.
5. With such grievances, the petitioner filed the petition under Section 125 CrPC, before the learned SDJM (M), Majuli for granting Rs.10,000/-per month as maintenance towards her daily needs and educational expenditures and Rs.8,000/-per month as interim monthly maintenance and Rs.5,000/-as cost of litigation, vide Misc. Case No.12/2017.
6. The respondent/husband contested the case by filing written statement, wherein he has admitted his social marriage with the petitioner but denied all the allegations made against him and other family members. He also admitted that he is working as an elementary TET teacher and he purchased a scooty and gave the same to the present petitioner for commuting her to college. Denying the allegations raised by the petitioner, it is stated that on 09.01.2017, the petitioner, after attending her classes in the Majuli College, went to parental house. As regards the case filed by the petitioner, it is stated that there was an agreement between the parties. Further it is stated that the petitioner got married with the second party on the pressure from her parents and in fact, she wanted to marry another person, which is reflected from her private diary. The respondent further submitted that the present case has been filed on the basis of concocted story and she is not entitled to any maintenance.
7. The learned trial Court took t
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
