This revisional application was filed by the respondent husband challenging the maintenance order granted in favor of his wife and children. The Court held that the awarded amount was neither penurious nor luxurious.
The criminal revisional application is dismissed with a cost of Rs. 5000/-.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
26.9.2022 2 SB Ct. No.236
CRR 2774 of 2002
In the matter of : Sk. Mustafa
None is appearing on behalf of the petitioner.
This revisional application stems out of an order passed by
learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bolpur, Birbhum in a proceeding under Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure registered as Misc. Case No. 129/2000, T.R. No. 250/2000. Depicting herself as legal married neglected wife of Sk. Mustafa, Rahima Bibi filed an application under Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure stating inter alia that she was tortured in her matrimonial home by her husband as she failed to fetch money so demanded by her husband. Her husband made an attempt to administer poison in food and ultimately compelled the petitioner to leave the matrimonial home with her children and to take refuge to the house of her father. Her husband despite having sufficient means failed to maintain the petitioner and her two minor children. The opposite party however, denied the allegations and even denied to have means to provide maintenance.
Learned Trial Court after considering the evidence on record was pleased to grant a sum of Rs. 500/-to the petitioner and a sum of Rs. 300/- each to her two minor children as maintenance allowance. Hence this application.
From the attending facts of the case relationship between the parties stand admitted. The petitioner before this Court being the husband has incurred the responsibility to maintain his wife
and children which is flowing from factum of marriage. Under Section 106 of the Evidence Act the income of the petitioner husband is something within his special knowledge which he has failed to prove. Considering the cost of living at the relevant point of time, and in my view, the amount awarded by the learned Trial Court in favour of the petitioner and her two minor children cannot be said to be either penurious or luxurious. The order of the learned Trial Court does not warrant any interference.
The criminal revisional application merits no consideration and is dismissed with cost of Rs. 5000/- C.P.
Let a copy of this order be sent down to the learned Trial Court for information and necessary action.
(Siddhartha Roy Chowdhury, J.)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the maintenance allowance granted by the Trial Court was penurious or luxurious and warranted revisional interference.
Whether the respondent husband failed to discharge the burden of proving his income under Section 106 of the Evidence Act.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Sk. Mustafa
Rahima Bibi
Siddhartha Roy Chowdhury
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
