The court upheld the principle that maintenance should be provided to maintain the standard of living of the spouse and children, considering the change in circumstances and financial capacity of the parties.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. A.M. Barbhuiya, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. F.A. Laskar, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. This petition, under Sections 397/401, read with Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Robijul Alom Laskar, challenging the legality, propriety and correctness of the judgment and order, dated 10.11.2022, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Hailakandi in Criminal Appeal No.08/2022. It is to be noted here that vide the impugned judgment and order dated 10.11.2022, the learned Sessions Judge, Hailakandi dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner, and upheld the judgment and order, dated 25.11.2021, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hailakandi in Misc. Case No. 13/2018, in M.R.(D/V) Case No.69/2011. It is also to be mentioned here that vide the impugned judgment and order dated 25.11.2021, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hailakandi directed the petitioner to pay enhanced maintenance, under section 25(2) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (here-in-after referred to as ‘the D.V. Act’) to the respondent and her daughter @ Rs.9,000/, per month.

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

“The petitioner, Robijul Alom Laskar got married the respondent, Musstt. Arifa Ferdousi Laskar, on 06.03.2006, and lived together as husband and wife till 21.05.2010, in his house. They were blessed with a girl child also. After one year of the marriage, marital discord surfaced between them and the respondent, since 21.05.2010, started living in her parental abode. Thereafter, the respondent had filed a case, being MR (D/V) Case No.69/2011, under the D.V. Act, before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hailakandi against the petitioner claiming certain relief(s) under the said Act. In the aforesaid case, the learned Trial Court, after hearing bothsides, vide the judgment and order, dated 08.03.2013, directed the petitioner to pay maintenance @ Rs.1,500/- per month and to their minor daughter @ Rs.1,000/-per month, Rs.1,000/-per month towards the house rent and Rs.60,000/-as Mohorana amount to the respondent, besides Rs.5,000/-as compensation. The petitioner was further directed to return the educational certificate of the respondent to her”.

4. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hailakandi, the petitioner had filed the Criminal Appeal No.21/2013, against the impugned judgment and order dated 08.03.2013. However, the learned Sessions Judge, Hailakadi had partly allowed the appeal by setting aside the order of payment of Moharana to the respondent by the petitioner. However, so far as the payment of monthly maintenance, house rent and compensation, as directed by the learned Trial court to the respondent by the petitioner, was upheld.

5. Thereafter, the respondent had filed one Misc. Case being Misc. Case No.13/2018, in connection with the earlier MR(D/V) case No.69/2011, under Section 25(2) of the D.V. Act, for enhancement of her maintenance from Rs.1,500/-to Rs.15,000/-and maintenance to her daughter from Rs.1,000/-to Rs.10,000/-, on the ground of alleged price hike of essential commodities as well as expenditure of education of her. Thereafter, hearing both the parties, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hailakandi, vide judgment and order dated 25.11.2021, has enhanced the earlier monthly maintenance from Rs.2,500/-to Rs.9,000/-, to be paid to the respondent and her daughter without, however, specifying their share.

6. Being highly aggrieved with the aforesaid order, dated 25.11.2021, the petitioner had preferred the Criminal Appeal No.08/2022, before the court of learned Session Judge, Hailakandi. However, the same was dismissed vide the judgment and order dated 10.11.2022.

7. Left with no other alternative, the petitioner has approached this Court, by filing the present Revision Petition challenging the impugned judgme