The court emphasized the importance of considering the factual situation and dependency of the parties in determining maintenance under the PWDV Act.

1. Heard Mr. D.K. Bordoloi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P. Borthakur, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent as well as Mr. D. Baruah, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3.

2. This is an application filed under Section 397 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973, praying for setting aside and quashing of the order dated 06.12.2021 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karimganj in Misc. Case No. 318/2016, whereby, directed the petitioner to make a payment of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand) only per month as a maintenance to the aggrieved person i.e. the respondent No. 2 and Rs. 8,000/- (Rupees Eight thousand) only per month towards the maintenance of her child. Thus, the petitioner was directed to pay a total maintenance of Rs. 18,000/- (Rupees Eighteen thousand) only per month towards the maintenance to the present respondent No. 2 and for her child from the date of filing the petition.

3. The brief fact of the case is that; the respondent No. 2 filed a case under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (in short ‘PWDV Act’) seeking for monthly maintenance for herself as well as for her daughter/respondent No. 3. The respondent No. 2 further sought for relief under Sections 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23(2) and 26 of PWDV Act. After receipt of summons/notice from the Court, the present petitioner appeared before the Court and filed his written statement. The learned Trial Court after considering the facts and circumstances of this case and hearing both the sides passed the order directing the petitioner to make a payment of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand) only per month as maintenance to the aggrieved person i.e. the respondent No. 2 and Rs. 8,000/- (Rupees Eight thousand) only per month towards the maintenance of the child. Further, the learned Trial Court also directed the present petitioner to pay Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand) only as a cost of proceedings and Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty thousand) only as compensation to be paid by the aggrieved party/present respondent Nos. 2 & 3 by the petitioner. More so, the present petitioner is further directed to apply for the education allowance and medical facilities to the Railway Department for the present respondent No. 2 and her child.

4. On being highly aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 06.12.2021, the petitioner preferred this criminal revision petition.

5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Bordoloi that the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karimganj failed to appreciate the evidence on record in its true perspective and thus, arrived at a wrong decision and as such the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside and quashed. He also submitted that the learned Trial Court did not consider the salary of the petitioner and passed the order, whereby, directing him to pay a sum of Rs. 18,000/- (Rupees eighteen thousand) only per month towards the maintenance of the respondent Nos. 2 and 3. Hence, the present petition has been filed for setting aside and quashing of the judgment and order dated 06.12.2021 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karimganj in Misc. Case No. 318/2016. He further submitted that the respondent No. 3 is his daughter and she was born on 31.12.1999 and the impugned judgment and order was passed on 06.12.2021 after she became major, but the learned Trial Court did not consider the fact that at the time of passing the order the respondent No. 3 had already became major. More so, the petitioner No. 2 declared herself as monk and in the year 2006 she refused to stay with the present petitioner in the same quarter. The respondent No. 2 willfully withdrawn herself from the society, but, at present, the petitioner has been depriving to lead his marital co-habitation with the respondent No. 2.

6. The accused/petitioner denied the claim of