The court's decision affirmed the determination of maintenance allowance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., emphasizing the lack of sufficient ground to interfere with the quantum of maintenance as determined by the Family Court.

1. Heard Mr. Samarjit Bhattacharji, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Ms. P. Ghatak, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

2. By means of this petition, the petitioner has questioned the judgment dated 19.04.2016 as delivered in Criminal Miscellaneous (125)-67/2015 by the Judge, Family Court, Kailashahar, Unakoti, Tripura.

3. There is no dispute that the respondent filed a petition under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. for maintenance allowance from the petitioner herein. The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent is also not in the penumbra of dispute. It is further not in dispute that from their wedlock a male child was born.

4. The allegation as levelled in the petition filed under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. is that the petitioner started mental and physical harassment to the respondent at the instigation of his mother and other inmates. It has also been alleged further in that petition that the petitioner pressurised the respondent to bring Rs.50,000/- from her parents but since she failed to fulfil his demand, the petitioner became violent and during the advance stage of pregnancy, she was badly treated even beaten up. Out of apprehension that it would be harmful for the respondent to live with the petitioner, she left the matrimonial home and took shelter in her parental house where she gave birth of a male child who was the co-petitioner for maintenance but not arraigned in this petition. On allegation that the petitioner refused to maintain them, the said petition under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. was filed.

5. Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner does not have regular inflow of work, though he has been working as the mason and he does not have the adequate income to fairly maintain the respondent and their son. Mr. Bhattaharjee, learned counsel has focused his challenge contending that the quantum as determined is not proportionate to the income of the petitioner. On an imaginary basis, the income has been calculated for granting such maintenance allowance.

6. From the other side, Ms. P. Ghatak, learned counsel appearing for the respondent has submitted that the minimum wage for a skilled construction worker is Rs.375/- per day and that can be taken legally as the basis.

7. Be that as it may, from examining the records as well as on appreciating the submissions made by the learned counsel, this court does not find sufficient ground to interfere with the determination of quantum of the maintenance as well as the direction made by the Judge, Family Court, Kailashahar, Unakoti, Tripura and hence this petition is dismissed on affirming the impugned judgment and order. Resultantly, this petition is dismissed.

8. A copy of this order be furnished to Ms. P. Ghatak, learned counsel who is appearing as the legal aid counsel for the respondent for her doing the needful.

Send down the LCRs forthwith.