IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA, J.
Shohidul Islam, S/o. Billal Hussain - Petitioner
Versus
Mehera Khatun, D/o. Afsar Ali - Respondent
Criminal Revision Petition No. 239 of 2021
Decided On : 03-05-2023
Indian Penal Code,1860 - Section 417/468/471 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 397/401/482 and 125 - Constitution of India,1950 - Article 227 - Matrimonial life - Maintenance allowance - Physical torture - Compelled to leave - Amicable settlement - Amicus Curiae - Domestic Violence - Anticipatory bail - Held, It appears that Principal Judge Family Court proceeded ex-parte only after the present petitioner failed to remain present in proceeding section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 before it in spite of specific direction do so - Finding arrived at in impugned judgement by Principal Judge Family Court that present respondent is wife of present petitioner and in spite of having sufficient means present petitioner has neglected to maintain his wife who is unable to maintain herself is on basis of uncontroverted testimony of two witnesses who deposed on behalf of present respondent in proceeding section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 before Family Court - Findings of Principal Judge Family Court are based on evidence available on record - Petition Dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
1. This Criminal Revision Petition has been registered on filing of an application, under section 397/401/482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India, by the petitioner Shohidul Islam, impugning the Judgment dated 08.11.2019, passed in F.C.(Crl.) Case No. 677/2018, by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court No. 2, Guwahati, whereby the present petitioner was directed to pay monthly maintenance allowance of Rs.3000/- (Rupees Three Thousand) to the present respondent from the date of the said Judgment. The present petitioner was also directed, by the impugned Judgment, to clear the payment of entire arrear interim maintenance allowance within 2(two) months from the date of the Judgment.
2. The facts relevant for adjudication for Criminal Revision Petition in brief are as follows:-
(ii) On the basis of her petition under section 125 Cr.P.C., F.C. (Crl.) Case No. 677/2018 was registered in the Family Court No.2, Kamrup (M), Guwahati.
(iii) Notices were issued to the present petitioner, by the Family Court in the proceeding under section 125 Cr.P.C.,. The present petitioner appeared before the Family Court No.2, Kamrup(M), Guwahati, on 22.02.2019 and prayed for some time for filing written statement, which was allowed. By the same order, the matter was referred to the Counsellor, Family Court No.2, Kamrup (M), Guwahati for making an effort to settle the dispute between the parties through conciliation. However, after a couple of sitting before learned Counsellor, Family Court, Guwahati, the conciliation attempt failed and on 25.02.2019, the matter was again referred back to Principal Judge Family Court No. 2 for adjudication. The matter was also taken up in the Lok Adalat, on 09/03/2019, however, there also both the parties failed to arrive at an amicable settlement.
(iv) Thereafter, on 06.05.2019, after hearing both the parties, the Principal Judge, Family Court No.2, Kamrup(M), Guwahati directed the present petitioner to pay an interim maintenance allowance of Rs.2000/-(Rupees Two Thousand only) per month, to the present respondent during the pendency of F.C. (Crl.) Case No. 677/2018.
(v) Thereafter, the matter was again referred to Lok-Adalat on 13.07.2019. However, both the parties failed to reach at amicable settlement and the case was again referred back for adjudication.
(vi) Thereafter, on several consecutive dates, i.e. on 30.08.2019, 18.09.2019, 21.10.2019, 30.10.2019, 04.11.2019 and 08.11.2019, the present petitioner remained absent. Though on 30.08.2019, a petition was filed on behalf of the present petitioner showing cause of his absence and learned Principal Judge, Family Court No. 2 allowed him time for the last chance and directed him to remain present positively before the Court, on the next date, and also clear the payment of arrear interim maintenance allowance. However, on the next date, i.e. on 18.09.2019, the present petitioner again remained absent by filing a petition bearing No. 1092/2019 praying for some more time. The learned Principal Judge, Family Court No. 2, by order dated 18.09.2019 rejected the said petition and proceede
The court reinforced that maintenance obligations under Section 125 Cr.P.C. are critical, and failure to comply with court orders can lead to severe legal consequences.
A wife must demonstrate sufficient reason to refuse cohabitation with her husband to be entitled to maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C.
The plea raised in a Revision Petition should have been raised before the Trial Court and cannot be raised for the first time in a Revision Petition.
A minor can be required to pay maintenance obligations upon reaching majority, reflecting the need for reasonable support based on actual income.
The main legal point established is that a wife is not entitled to maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. if she refuses to live with her husband without sufficient reason.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of the wife to maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. despite the divorce decree and permanent alimony awarded under the Hindu Marri....
The entitlement to maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and the consideration of financial constraints in determining the maintenance amount.
Limitation - Recovery of arrear maintenance - When main petition claiming arrear was pending and kept alive, filing of subsequent petition was only to specify exact amount accrued due upto date. Such....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.