A wife who resides separately from her husband for an extended period without justifiable cause or prior complaints of ill-treatment is disentitled to maintenance under Section 125(4) Cr.P.C.

ORDER

Heard Ms. D Mahanta, learned Amicus Curiae, appearing for the petitioner and Mr. M Saikia, learned Amicus Curiae, appearing for the respondent.

2. The present criminal revision petition has been instituted assailing the judgment dated 26.03.2014 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Darrang, Mangaldai, in C.R. No. 58(D-4)/2013, interfering with the judgment dated 09.09.2013 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Darrang, Mangaldai in M.R. No. 224/2011.

3. The petitioner, herein, had instituted an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Darrang, Mangaldai. The said application was registered as M.R. No. 224/2011.

In the said application, the petitioner, herein, had contended that the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent, herein, was solemnized in the year 1989 and they had lived as husband and wife. She further contended that in the year 1990, a female child, who was named, Babita Devi, was born out of said wedlock.

In the complaint petition, the petitioner, herein, had alleged that after a few days of their marriage, she was subjected to torture, both physical and mental by the respondent, herein. It was further alleged that after 2 (two) months of the birth of the female child, the respondent, herein, had driven her out of her matrimonial house and accordingly, left with no other alternative, she had started to live at her parents’ house, situated at Thekerabari.

In the complaint petition, the petitioner, herein, had further contended that in the year 2008, she with the help of her parents and other well wishers, had managed to give away the hand of her daughter in marriage and for that the respondent, herein, had not offered any help. It was also contended in the complaint petition that after having been driven out from her matrimonial house, she had made around 40 attempts of going back to her matrimonial house, but she was prevented from doing so by the respondent, herein. It was also projected in the complaint petition that the respondent, herein, had married another woman and was living with her as husband and wife. The petitioner, herein, in the complaint petition had projected that the necessity for institution of the maintenance case, to be that she was unable to maintain herself, as she was suffering from piles and had become weak and being unable to maintain herself.

The respondent, herein, filed his written statement in the said maintenance case and therein, he had admitted the solemnization of the marriage between him and the petitioner, herein. The paternity of the child, born out of their wedlock was also admitted. In the written statement, the respondent, herein, had projected that the petitioner, herein, had left her matrimonial home willfully and there was no force applied on her by the respondent, herein, for the purpose. It was projected in the written statement that he had tried to bring the petitioner, herein, back to her matrimonial house, however, she refused and accordingly, he had performed his 2nd marriage with one Jayanti Devi and a female child, Swapna Devi, was born out of the said wedlock. In the written statement, the respondent, herein, further projected that he had suffered severe injury due to falling down while cleaning a ceiling while he was working on daily wage basis. He has projected that on account of his such fall, he had become physically incapable and his income source had also become limite