IMPORTANT POINT
A husband is obligated to provide maintenance to his wife under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. if he has the means, regardless of the wife's alleged misconduct.

JUDGMENT :

MITALI THAKURIA, J.

Heard Mr. A. A. Dewan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. M. Ali, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. This application has been filed under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 challenging the impugned Judgment & Order dated 08.02.2023, passed by the learned Principle Judge, Family Court, Barpeta, in F.C. (Crl.) Case No. 491/2021, registered under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., whereby, the petitioner/2nd party was directed to pay maintenance of Rs. 4,000/- (Rupees Four thousand) only to the present respondent/1st party.

3. The facts leading to the filing of the present revision petition are as follows: The respondent, as the 1st party, filed an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. claiming maintenance from the present petitioner/2nd party. The respondent's case, in brief, is that she got married with the petitioner on 04.03.2020 as per Muslim Shariat. She contends that, two months after their marriage, the petitioner started demanding Rs. 5,00,000/- as dowry due to direct instigation and inducement by other family members of the petitioner. She alleges that when she was unable to meet this demand, the petitioner subjected her to physical and mental torture. Despite enduring this treatment for the sake of her family, she was ultimately driven out of her matrimonial home on 07.06.2020 and had to take shelter at her parents' house. Since leaving her matrimonial home, the petitioner has neither inquired about her nor provided any maintenance. She has no source of income to support herself. Conversely, the petitioner is a businessman with sufficient means, owning significant landed property, and earning approximately Rs. 1,00,000/- per month from various sources. Consequently, she has claimed Rs. 20,000 per month towards her maintenance.

4. The petitioner filed his written statement contesting the case and denied all allegations leveled against him, including the demand for dowry of Rs. 5,00,000/- from the respondent. He further stated in his written statement that the respondent is a lady of an adulterous character and engaged in illicit relationships with other individuals. He also claimed that she desired a very luxurious lifestyle despite knowing that he is still pursuing his studies and has no source of income. The petitioner is a B.Com student and has no landed property to provide the maintenance demanded by the respondent. However, after hearing arguments from both sides and considering the evidence on record, the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Barpeta, vide Judgment and Order dated 08.02.2023, awarded maintenance of Rs. 4,000/- per month to the respondent/1st party.

5. On being highly aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned Judgment and Order dated 08.02.2023 passed by the learned Principle Judge, Family Court, Barpeta in F.C. (Crl.) Case No. 491/2021, the petitioner has preferred this instant revision petition praying for setting aside and quashing of the aforesaid Judgment and Order.

6. Mr. Dewan, learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that the learned Trial Court passed the Judgment and Order dated 08.02.2023 without properly appreciating the evidence on record. He further submits that the respondent failed to prove the necessary ingredients required under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. to sustain her claim. Additionally, the Trial Court did not take into account the financial status of the petitioner, who is still pursuing his studies and is not in a position to provide maintenance as directed by the court. Moreover, the respondent/1st party left her matrimonial home willfully and without a cogent reason, which affects her claim for maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. Despite this, the petitioner remains ready and willing to reconcile and take his wife back, but the respondent is unwilling to continue the marital relationship. However, the Trial Court did not consider these aspects of the case and passed the impugned Judgment an