A husband has a legal obligation to maintain his wife and children, which cannot be ignored despite personal hardships or the wife's income capacity.

JUDGMENT

This criminal revision petition under Section 397 Cr.P.C read with Section 19 of the FAMILY COURTS ACT ,1984 has been filed by the petitioner-husband challenging the judgment and order dated 12.03.2020 passed by the Family Court, Sonamura in Criminal Misc. 52 of 2018 whereby the Family Court granted monthly maintenance allowance of a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards maintenance of the respondent-wife and her minor daughter and directed the petitioner-husband to remit the money to his wife within 7th day of each month by money order.

[2] By means of filing this criminal revision petition, petitioner-husband has challenged the impugned judgment of the Family Court mainly on the following grounds:

(i) The Family Court did not appreciate the fact that the respondent-wife could not adduce any documentary proof to prove the income of the petitioner. Without ascertaining his income, Family Court erroneously passed the judgment directing him to pay a huge sum of monthly maintenance allowance to his wife and daughter.

(ii) The Family Court did not appreciate the fact that the respondent-wife had income from the beauty parlour owned by her and she was not unable to maintain herself.

(iii) The Family Court did not appreciate the contention of the husband that he lost his eye sight due to heart attack and his earning capacity was also reduced due to such illness.

(iv) Family Court did not also consider the fact that the wife had withdrawn herself from the company of her husband without any reasonable ground and despite his earnest efforts to bring her back she declined to come back to her matrimonial home.

[3] Heard the petitioner-in-person. Heard Mr. Sudipta Shekher Debnath, learned advocate appearing for the respondent-wife and also heard Mr. S. Debnath, learned Addl. P.P appearing for the state-respondent.

[4] Before I advert to the contentions of the counsel of the parties, it would be appropriate to lay the bare facts which are essential for disposal of the petition:

Smti. Pritilata Barman, wife of the petitioner filed a petition under Section 125 Cr. P.C supported by an affidavit on 30.07.2018 in the Court of the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate at Sonamura. She claimed monthly maintenance allowance of Rs.60,000/- from her husband towards maintenance of herself and her minor daughter @Rs.30,000/- for each of them. The matter was first heard by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonamura. After the Family Court was established at Sonamura, the case was tried and disposed of by the Family Court. The wife stated that her marriage was solemnised on 19.09.2013. During her marriage her parents gave valuables like furniture, gold and untensils. 3/4 months after marriage her in-laws including her mother-in-law and sister-in-law started torturing her at her matrimonial home. Her husband also joined them. She used to work like a slave in her matrimonial home. Still her in-laws were not happy who subjected her to various kinds of cruelty. Even though her husband used to earn Rs.2.5 lakhs from his industry producing jam, jelly, pickles, sauce etc., he did not meet any of her demands. Six months after her marriage she was severely beaten by her husband and father-in-law. However, in the midst of differences, she conceived and gave birth to a daughter on 06.01.2015. After the birth of their daughter, her husband demanded a sum of Rs.1,40,000/- and asked her to bring the money from her parents. Since she failed to fulfil his demand she was tortured by her husband. On 12/12/2015 she called her parents after she was physically tortured by her husband. Her parents came and took her back to her parental home along with her daughter. Since