In maintenance proceedings, evidence must be evaluated in the broader context of survival, with emphasis on the obligation of the husband to provide for his wife and children, regardless of technicalities.

JUDGMENT

T. Amarnath Goud, J. - Heard Mr. Asutosh De, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner.

2. This present criminal revision petition has been filed under Section-19 of the FAMILY COURTS ACT , 1984 against the judgment and order passed on 26.02.2021 in connection with Crl. Misc. No. 20 of 2019, whereby and whereunder, the learned Judge, Family Court, Sepahijala, Tripura, directed to pay maintenance of Rs. 9,000/- per month to the respondent herein and two others who are minors. Also, directed that the maintenance allowance should be paid all and well, within 7 days of every English calendar month.

3. The facts which set the criminal law in motion, in short, are that the respondent-wife got married to the petitioner about 12 years ago from the date of filing this case according to Hindu rites and customs. At the time of marriage, as per demand of the petitioner, the father of the respondent gifted Rs. 50,000/-, 3 vories of gold ornaments, furnitures and other valuable articles to the petitioner-husband and altogether the father of the respondent-wife spent more than Rs. 3 lakhs. Subsequently, out of wedlock, she gave a birth two male children, namely, Suraj Jamatia (11 years) and Prabin Jamatia (5 years), the respondents No. 2 and 3. It has been stated that after 5/6 years of marriage, the petitioner-husband and his mother out of conspiracy drove out the respondent No. 1 from their house with an intention to arrange for second marriage of the petitioner-husband. They also demanded Rs. 2,00,000/- from the respondent-wife to be brought from her parental house and also inflicted both physical and mental torture upon the respondent No. 1 for fulfillment of their demand.

4. Thereafter, the family member of the respondent No. 1 arranged several village meetings for settlement of the dispute and for good future of the respondent No. 1 sent her to her matrimonial home but all in vain. On 10.01.2019, at about 10.00 am, the petitioner and his family members severely assaulted the respondent-wife and also tried to kill her by strangulating her by way of holding her neck. When the children of the parties raised hue and cry, the husband and his family members found that the neighbouring people were coming and then they left the respondent. Thereafter, the respondent-wife under compelling circumstances takes shelter in her parental house along with her children.

5. On 09.03.2019, the petitioner went to the parental house of his wife at about 9.00 pm along with a vehicle and again demanded Rs. 2,00,000/- from the respondent-wife. When she refused to the demand made by her husband, the petitioner herein, inflicted fists and blows upon her and after hearing her screaming the petitioner-husband fled away from her parental house. It has been stated that the respondent No. 1 leading her life in extreme financial hardship along with her minor children, she has no source of income for her livelihood. The husband of the respondent No. 1 has not given any single farthing towards their maintenance. It has been further stated that the petitioner has landed property and rubber garden and his monthly income is Rs. 40,000/-.

6. In support of the case of the petitioner, Mr. De, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the respondent-wife is an ill-tempered lady and she used to misbehave with her in-laws. The respondent No. 1 started to create pressure upon the petitioner to get separate from their joint mess, but the petitioner did not agree. On this count, the wife-respondent used to leave her matrimonial home on and after for a long time with