JUDGMENT :

SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND, J.

1. Heard Mr. O. Modi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. G. Jini, learned counsel representing the private respondent.

2. This petition is directed against the impugned judgment dated 21.12.2020 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Capital Complex, Yupia, Papum Pare District, in connection with Maintenance Case No. 36/18 under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C. for short), directing the petitioner to pay a monthly maintenance of Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand) to the respondent.

3. The corresponding Maintenance Case No. 36/18 was initiated by the respondent alleging inter-alia that she had been subjected to cruelty since 1992 by the petitioner, after her marriage to the petitioner solemnised as per ‘Galo’ customary rites. It is contended that the petitioner had indulged in extra-marital relationship with another woman, who even stayed in their matrimonial home, located at E-Sector at Naharlagun. Several kebang (local meetings) and family meetings were held, but the petitioner failed to mend his ways. It is also contended that the respondent endured the cruelty meted out to her, but when the situation became unbearable, she was impelled to move the Court for monthly maintenance.

4. It is submitted that the respondent had suffered physically due to the cruelty meted out to her by the petitioner/husband and she had been compelled to take contraceptive pills and at times the petitioner had urinated on her. Initially the respondent chose not to resort to any litigation, in order to save the reputation of her family which includes her two children, a daughter and a son, who have attained majority. It was also submitted that the respondent had to fend for herself as the petitioner had neglected to pay for her maintenance and had even denied paying for her medical bills. The petitioner is a regular Government Employee working under the Department of Secondary Education and at that point of time he had an additional income of Rs. 60,000/- (Rupees Sixty Thousand) over and above his monthly salary, whilst the respondent used to earn a basic pay of Rs. 26,453/- (Rupees Twenty-six thousand four hundred fifty-three) as a contractual employee. It was admitted by the respondent through her petition u/s 125 Cr.P.C. that the petitioner denied to maintain their daughter as soon as she (petitioner) got appointed as a Junior Teacher in July 2006.

5. It was contended by the respondent that the petitioner had left his matrimonial home without any rhyme or reason and had shifted base to his sister’s rented house at Itanagar. The respondent and her family members implored with him to return home, but the petitioner ignored their requests. It was also submitted that although the respondent resides in a Government Quarter allotted to the petitioner/husband along with her son, she may have to vacate the Government Quarter, if the petitioner gets transferred to some other place and it would not be possible for her to pay for a rented house.

6. The petitioner contested the proceeding u/s 125 Cr.P.C. and filed a written statement. He denied the allegations of an extra marital affair with another woman. On the contrary he had alleged that the respondent had subjected him to cruelty from the threshold of their marriage. He had also denied the allegations of neglecting to maintain his son and had stressed that he had paid periodically for maintenance of his daughter and had claimed that he had been paying the electricity bills for the Government Quarter occupied by the respondent/wife. He denied that he treated his wife with cruelty. On the contrary, the petitioner had submitted that the respondent used to quarrel with his mother and used to belittle their standard of living. His wife was abusive in nature and she used to compare him with her former boyfriends. It had been contended that the respondent used to insist to lead an independent life and she was disinterested