IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BANGLADESH HIGH COURT DIVISION

(CIVIL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION)

Present:

Mr. Justice S M Kuddus Zaman

CIVIL REVISION NO.1774 OF 2019

In the matter of:

An application under Section 115(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure.

And

Supen Chandra Roy

... Petitioner

-Versus-

Samila Rani and others

... Opposite parties

Mr. Binoy Krishno Podder with

Ms. Biroja Bala and

Ms. Ayvee Akter, Advocates

... For the petitioner.

None appears

…. For the opposite party parties.

Heard on 19.11.2024 and Judgment on 20.11.2024.

On an application under Section 115(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure this Rule was issued calling upon the opposite parties to show cause as to why the impugned judgment and decree dated 07.05.2019 passed by the learned Joint District Judge, 1st Court, Thakurgaon in Famila Appeal No.14 of 2018 affirming those dated 28.05.2018 passed by the learned Sadar Family Judge, Thakurgaon, in Family Suit No.11 of 2017 decreeing the suit should not be set aside and/ or such other or further or orders as to this Court may seem fit and proper.

Facts in short are that opposite parties as plaintiffs instituted above family suit for maintenance for plaintiff No.1-2 alleging that the defendant married her according to the Hindu Customary Law and out of above wedlock plaintiff No.2 was born who is now 12 years of age. The defendant refrained from paying maintenance of the plaintiffs from 01.01.2016.

Defendant contested the suit by filing a written statement alleging that he is an Assistant Teacher of a Primary School and gets Taka 16,000/- as monthly salary. He has his first wife and two sons who are studying in Polytechnic School and after maintaining above family, it is difficult for him to pay maintenance of the plaintiffs separately. The defendant wanted the plaintiffs would live jointly in his dwelling house with his first wife so that he could maintain both wives and their children.

At trial plaintiffs and defendant examined 3 witnesses each. But none produced and proved any document.

On consideration of facts and circumstance sof the case and evidence on record the learned Judge of the Family Court decreed above suit for Tk.1,26,000/- granting monthly maintenance for plaintiff No.1 at the rate of Tk.2,000/- and Tk.2,500/ for plaintiffs No.2 both effective from 01.01.2016.

Being aggrieved by above judgment and decree above defendant as appellant preferred Family Appeal No.14 of 2018 to the District Judge, Thakurgaon which was heard by the learned Joint District Judge, 1st Court who dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgment and decree of the trial Court.

Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with above judgment and decree of the Court of Appeal below above appellant as petitioner moved to this Court and obtained this Rule.

Mr. Binoy Krishna Podder, learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is an Assistant Teacher of a Primary School and plaintiff No.1 is his second wife. The petitioner has his first wife and two sons who are studying in Polytechnic School and the plaintiff has serious financial hardship due to maintaining above family and educational expenses. The petitioner wanted that the plaintiffs would live in his house jointly with his first wife so that he could maintain both wives economically but the plaintiff did not agree. Plaintiff No.2 Smrity Rani has already been married to Bhuvon Roy and the petitioner paid all expenses of her marriage. As such the petitioner is not required to pay maintenance for maintain plaintiff No.2 anymore. The petitioner has already deposited Taka 30,000/- of the decreetal money and he agrees to pay the outstanding decretal money in reasonable monthly installments.

No one appears on behalf of the opposite party at the time of hearing of this Rule although this matter appeared in the list for hearing on several dates.

I have consider