IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
MITALI THAKURIA, J.
Dhrubajytoi Kalita S/o Shri Parikhit Kalita – Petitioner
Versus
Bhanita Deka D/o Shri Haladhar Deka – Respondent
Crl. Rev. Pet. No. 255 of 2023
Decided On : 26-04-2024
MAINTENANCE - Family Dispute - Section 125 Cr.P.C. - [Section 125 Cr.P.C.] - The court discussed the provisions of Section 125 Cr.P.C. and emphasized its purpose to provide social justice and protect women and children from destitution and vagrancy. The court highlighted the obligation of a man to maintain his wife, children, and parents when they are unable to support themselves. The court found the awarded maintenance amount to be reasonable and justified, and dismissed the Criminal Revision Petition.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to set aside the order directing him to pay maintenance to his wife and minor son under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The petitioner claimed that the respondent had left the matrimonial house on her own and made false allegations against him. He argued that he was not in a position to provide the maintenance amount as directed by the Family Court.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the respondent had brought serious allegations of mental and physical torture against the petitioner and his family, leading to her leaving the matrimonial house. The court noted that the petitioner failed to substantiate his claim that the respondent left the house without any reason. The court also observed that the petitioner's contradictory statements regarding his income raised doubts about his financial position.
Issues: The main issues revolved around the respondent's entitlement to maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C., the petitioner's financial capacity to pay the maintenance amount, and the allegations of mental and physical torture made by the respondent.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the purpose of Section 125 Cr.P.C. to provide social justice and prevent destitution and vagrancy. It highlighted the obligation of a man to maintain his wife, children, and parents when they are unable to support themselves. The court found the awarded maintenance amount to be reasonable and justified based on the evidence and the petitioner's financial capacity.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the Criminal Revision Petition and upheld the order directing the petitioner to pay maintenance to the respondent and her minor child. The petitioner was directed to pay the awarded maintenance amount along with any arrears.
1. Heard Mr. S.D. Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. H.A. Ahmed, learned counsel for the respondent.
2. This is an application under Section 401 read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. against the impugned judgment and order dated 14.03.2023 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Barpeta in connection with F.C. (Crl.) No. 140/2022 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. whereby the present petitioner is directed to pay maintenance allowance of Rs. 4,000/- per-month to the wife/respondent and Rs. 1,000/- to her minor son from the date of filing of the petition.
3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he married the respondent on 05.12.2018 as per Hindu rituals and started their conjugal life at village Banekuchi, Tihu, Nalbari. They lead a very happy conjugal life, but slowly the respondent started misbehaving with the petitioner and his old parents and without any reason she left the house of the petitioner and went to her maternal house situated at Sarthebari, which is 15 K.M. far from the house of the petitioner. She started staying in her maternal house for almost two/three months. However the respondent again came back to her matrimonial house on being requested by the petitioner. But after some days she again started behaving cruelly with the petitioner as well as in laws and after some days, she again left her matrimonial house. However on 09.05.2021, a village bichar was held wherein an agreement was made and as per the said agreement, she again returned to her matrimonial house and started her marital life. But again on 26.08.2021, she falsely lodged an FIR before Tihu police station against the petitioner and his family member and she went to her maternal house and since then she did not return back to her matrimonial house. Thereafter, she lodged a case for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Barpeta, wherein, after hearing the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides, the learned Principal Judge, Family Court passed an order for maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- directing the petitioner to pay Rs. 4,000/- to the respondent/wife and Rs. 1,000/- to the minor son of the respondent towards maintenance allowance. He further submits that she lodged the FIR as well as the case for maintenance with some false and concocted allegation of mental and physical torture on her for demand of money, which is totally false and concocted. It is stated by the respondent in her petition that the petitioner has a stock of grocery shop goods at his residence and he earns Rs. 60,000/- per-annum and that apart he also has house and other agricultural land. But the petitioner is a hocker of stationary goods and he sales his stationary items door to door in his locality and earns very meager amount of money which is not even sufficient to maintain himself and his parents.
But the learned Court below while passing the impugned order did not consider all these facts of this case and arrived at a wrong decision which is passed only on the basis of the evidence of PWs. More so, the respondent left her matrimonial house by her own and she refused to continue her conjugal life and thus she is not entitled to any maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Further, the petitioner was also not given any chance to produce his income certificate before the learned Court below and decided the quantum of maintenance in absence of assets and liabilities statement on record. Further it is stated that the learned Family court also over looked the criminal case which was filed by the respondent under Section 498A Cr.P.C. wherein, the respondent is already acquitted by the JMFC, Tihu. Accordingly, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the judgment and order passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Barpeta in FC (Crl.) 140/2022 is liable to be set aside and quashed and the present petitioner is not in a position to provide maintenance o
Capt. Ramesh Chander Kaushal vs. Veena Kaushal
Kirtikant D. Vadodaria vs. State of Gujarat
The main legal point established in the judgment is the obligation of a man to maintain his wife, children, and parents under Section 125 Cr.P.C. to prevent destitution and provide social justice.
Maintenance – Section 125, Cr.P.C. is a measure of social justice and is specially enacted to protect women and children.
The duty of the husband to provide financial support to the wife and the purpose of Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. as a measure of social justice to prevent destitution and vagrancy of deserted wives and....
The court emphasized the husband's legal obligation to maintain his wife, particularly in cases of cruelty and dowry demands, reaffirming the purpose of Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. to prevent destitut....
The maintenance order under Section 125 CrPC aims to support those unable to maintain themselves, emphasizing social justice without penalizing past neglect.
The court affirmed that a wife is entitled to maintenance unless disqualified, emphasizing the husband's obligation to support her, especially when she has been subjected to harassment.
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.