The maintenance order under Section 125 CrPC aims to support those unable to maintain themselves, emphasizing social justice without penalizing past neglect.

JUDGMENT :

S.K. Medhi, J.

The instant revision petition has been filed against a final order dated 30.05.2025 passed by the learned Family Court, Barpeta in a proceeding under Section 125 CrPC [corresponding to Section 144 BNSS , 2023] registered as F.C. (Crl.) Case No. 509/2022. By the aforesaid order, maintenance @ Rs.7,000/- to the second party - wife and an equivalent amount for the daughter have been granted.

2. The facts which have revealed from the case records are that that the second party - wife had instituted the aforesaid proceeding by filing a complaint before the learned Family Court, Barpeta. It was averred that the second party was forced to leave the matrimonial house on 23.03.2022 along with her daughter due to torture and was staying at her parental house. It is also averred that the only daughter was attending the school and there was no sufficient means to maintain themselves and accordingly, the prayer was made for grant of maintenance allowance @ Rs.10,000/- each to the complainant as well as to the daughter. The complaint was opposed by filing a written statement.

3. The complainant - first party had adduced evidence through two witnesses, namely herself and her brother. In their testimonies, it was deposed that on 23.03.2022, the second party drove her out from the matrimonial house with her minor child. It has been further deposed that the second party was making unlawful demands of land and used to torture her for not fulfilling the demands and such torture had aggravated day by day. It has also been stated that the second party was an Advocate practicing in the Barpeta District Court and was earning about Rs.50,000/- per month and also has land and property. In the cross-examination, however, she had revealed that she was working as a volunteer in the Tally Education Program and was earning Rs.2,000/- per month and this fact was not disclosed in the Assets & Liability statement. She had also stated that the second party was appointed as a Teacher in the Ratnadeep Junior College, Kahibari, which is a venture school and the daughter was admitted to the Jururam Pathak Girls High School, Barpeta.

4. The PW2, who is the brother of the first party, had supported the case by reiterating that there were unlawful demands from the second party and on many occasions, the first party (his sister), was driven out in which he had intervened. He had also stated that the second party continued to torture his sister / first party and his sister had reported that the second party had threatened to kill her and eventually, she was driven out from the matrimonial house along with the minor child. In the cross- examination, however he has stated that he did not know the reason as to why on 13.04.2022, the first party had returned back to her parental house. 5. The petitioner - second party had also adduced evidence through two nos. of witnesses, namely himself and a friend of his. In his evidence, the petitioner had denied the allegation of committing any torture upon the first party and had also highlighted the aspect that he was working as a tutor and his services were not provincialised. He has also stated that the first party was working as a Tally Teacher and was getting monthly remuneration. In the cross-examination, however, he has admitted that he was a lawyer in the Barpeta District Bar which he had joined in the year 2008. He had also admitted that he had joined Ratnadeep Junior College as a teacher of Education; however, his post was still unsanctioned. The DW2, who was an advocate practicing in the Barpeta Bar, had disc