ORDER

17.02.2021 Heard Ms D Borgohain, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms S Khanikar, learned counsel for respondent No. 2. Also heard Mr B Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam.

The petitioner, herein, has been directed to pay maintenance amount of Rs. 5,000/- to the respondent-

wife and her two daughters, by way of order dated 30.10.2015, passed by the learned CJM, Golaghat, in Misc Case No. 56/2013, under Section 125 CrPC. Raising grievances against the impugned order, the present petition has been preferred solely on the ground that the petitioner has no source of income, save and except certain plot of land (forest land) and also contended that such maintenance petition has been preferred after 18 years of separation and hence, the maintenance order is liable to be quashed and set aside.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, referring to the documents annexed and also the evidence on record, has submitted that petitioner is not mentally sound person, for which, his wife also left his house far back in the year 1995, along with her three children and now after several years she has filed the maintenance petition. On the other hand, it is contended that the mental condition of the petitioner is reflected from the evidence to suggest that he is a mentally unsound person and in the circumstances, he is unable to pay maintenance to his wife.

Learned counsel for the respondent has, however, contended that delay in making the prayer is itself not a ground to reject the same and whereas, the petitioner has a married wife/respondent and he is the father of three children and as such, he has a legal and moral obligation to pay the maintenance, irrespective of any capacity, whether he is of sound financial background or not.

I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the LCR produced.

From the evidence on record, it emerges that although at earlier point of time, the petitioner was suffering from some sort of mental disorder, but he has subsequently recovered and the learned trial Court even sent the petitioner to medical Board to examine and the Medical Board of K K Civil Hospital, Golaghat and the Board opined that he was fit to stand the trial. The other witnesses of the petitioner’s side as well as the respondent’s side have repeatedly stated that after better treatment, the petitioner has recovered from his illness.

So far as the other contention that has been raised about the delay in preferring the petition, it can be held that delay itself cannot be a ground to reject such maintenance prayer. The respondent/wife in her evidence has categorically stated that because of giving birth to girl child repeatedly, on three occasions, she was tortured by the petitioner/husband, for which she was compelled to return back to her parental house and decided not to go back to her husband. Further it is contended that with utter distress, by running a betel nut shop, she had brought up her three children, but after the lapse of time her capacity to earn has come down and for which, she has preferred the maintenance petition.

The learned trial Court has discussed all the findings while coming to the conclusion and passing the final order and no any irregularity or perversity is found to interfere into the aforesaid order of the learned trial Court. However, in view of the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent/wife that till date no maintenance could be released in her favour since the date of passing of the order dated 30.10.2015, this Court is of the opinion that the maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- is on the higher side. On the other hand, the petitioner has a legal and moral obligation to provide maintenance to his married wife and children, irrespective of his having sound financial background or not.

Considering all entirety of the matter, the maintenance amount is reduced to Rs. 4,000/- (Rupees Four Thousand Only) per month, to be paid by the petitioner