SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Gau) 276

THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
MALASRI NANDI, J
Sumita Mazumdar C/o Mr. Subhash Bhattacharjee - Appellant
Versus
Debasish Mazumdar Son Of Late Dulal Mazumdar - Respondent
Crl.Rev.P. 362 / 2022
Decided On : 30-01-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants : MR. M NATH, MS. S RAJKUMARI,MR. A ROY
For the Respondent: MR. K BHATTACHARJEE, MR. S DAS,MS. B TALUKDAR

IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction, stating it cannot re-evaluate evidence already considered by the lower court.

Headnote:

(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 397, 401, and 125 - Maintenance - The petitioner sought enhancement of maintenance from Rs. 15,000/- to Rs. 1,25,000/- per month, arguing the respondent's income warranted a higher amount. The Family Court granted Rs. 15,000/- based on the respondent's financial capability. The court emphasized the narrow scope of revisional jurisdiction, stating that it cannot substitute its own conclusions on evidence already considered by the lower court. (Paras 4 , 10 , 15 , 16 )

(B) Revision Jurisdiction - The court clarified that the revisional jurisdiction is limited to correcting patent errors or jurisdictional issues and does not extend to re-evaluating evidence. (Paras 10 , 12 , 13 )

Facts of the case:

The petitioner and respondent were married in 2008, but the marriage deteriorated due to alleged torture and demands for money. The petitioner filed for maintenance after the respondent obtained an ex-parte divorce.

Findings of Court:

The Family Court fixed maintenance at Rs. 15,000/- per month, which the petitioner sought to enhance.

Issues: The main issues were the adequacy of the maintenance amount and the scope of the court's revisional powers.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the Family Court's decision was within its jurisdiction and that the petitioner could seek enhancement through proper channels.

Result: Revision petition dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

MALASRI NANDI, J.

Heard Mr. M, Nath, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. By filing this application under Section 397 , 401 read with section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 , the petitioner has prayed for setting aside the Judgment and Order dated 12/04/2022 passed in F.C. (Crl.) 361/2013 by the Learned Principal Judge, Family Court No. 1, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati.

3. The brief facts of the case is that the petitioner got married with the respondent on 27/01/2008 as per Hindu rites and rituals at Guwahati and their marriage was registered before the Marriage Officer, Kamrup (Metro) whereby a certificate was issued under No. 158 dated 28/01/2008. However, after few months of their marriage, the respondent and his family members began to quarrel with the petitioner over every trivial matter. The respondent and his family members used to torture the petitioner both mentally as well as physically by using abusive languages. The mother-in-law and sister-in-law of the petitioner forcefully snatched away all the jewelleries, clothes and valuable gifts which were given by the parents and other relatives of the petitioner and further started demanding money and jewelleries from the parents of the petitioner.

4. On another occasion, the grandfather of the petitioner became seriously ill and it was his last wish to see his granddaughter for the last time. However, the respondent, his sister and mother did not allow the petitioner to come down to Guwahati to see her grandfather for the last time. Moreover, the respondent and his mother started demanding a flat from the father of the petitioner and threatened the father of the petitioner that if the flat is not arranged, she will make the life of the petitioner a hell. Thereafter, on several occasions, the respondent and his family members pressurised the petitioner for money and tortured her, even refused to keep the petitioner with them. Thereby, the petitioner lodged an FIR before the Paltan Bazar P.S. and a case was registered vide Paltan Bazar P.S. Case No. 1091/11 u/s 498A IPC, and started to live in the house of her parents. Thereafter, the respondent initiated divorce proceeding in the Family court, Delhi. The petitioner did not receive any notice regarding the divorce proceeding and by making false and misleading statement the respondent obtained an ex-parte Judgment. The petitioner came to know about the said Judgment only when she sent a notice to the respondent for restitution of their conjugal rights. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a petition for modification of the ex-parte divorce decree which was rejected by the learned Family Court, Delhi. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court which was also rejected on the ground of delay. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the Hon’ble Supreme challenging the Judgment and Order passed by the High Court of Delhi. However, the SLP was withdrawn with a liberty to approach the appropriate court praying for maintenance. Accordingly, the petitioner approached the family court, Kamrup(M) praying for grant of maintenance from the respondent vide FC (Crl) case no. 361/ 2013. The principal Judge, Family Court granted interim maintenance amounting to Rs.12,000/- per month to the petitioner. After hearing both sides, the respondent was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 15,000/- per month to the petitioner as maintenance.

5. Being highly aggrieved and dissatisfied with the Judgment and Order dated 12/04/2022, the petitioner has preferred this revision petition.

6. It was urged by learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent has been working in the post of manager in TCS. As per the document available in the record in the year 2014 his gross yearly income was Rs. 23,33,820/-. This income was his taxable income. In addition to that the respondent has


                  Click Here to Read the rest of this document
                  1
                  2
                  3
                  4
                  5
                  6
                  7
                  8
                  9
                  10
                  11
                  SupremeToday Portrait Ad
                  supreme today icon
                  logo-black

                  An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

                  Please visit our Training & Support
                  Center or Contact Us for assistance

                  qr

                  Scan Me!

                  India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

                  For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

                  whatsapp-icon Back to top