Petitioner challenged enhanced maintenance order under Cr.PC. Court reduced monthly allowance from Rs. 5,000 to Rs. 3,000 based on income assessment and directed payment of arrears within two months.
Maintenance reduced to Rs. 3,000 per month; arrears directed to be cleared within two months.
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.
Page No.# 1/2
GAHC010103292018
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Crl.Pet. 458/2018
1:RUBUL HUSSAIN
S/O- LATE SOON ALI, R/O- BALIYAGHAT, P.O AND P.S- SIVASAGAR, DISTSIVASAGAR, PIN- 785640, ASSAM
VERSUS
1:FAREHA BEGUM
W/O- MD. RUBUL HUSSAIN, PRESENT R/O- MATHURAPUR, MOUZADHUPABOR, P.S- MATHURAPUR, DIST- SIVASAGAR, PIN- 785689, ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A R SHOME
Advocate for the Respondent : MR. R ALI
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HITESH KUMAR SARMA
ORDER
Date : 03-10-2018
This is an application, filed under Section 482 Cr.PC, seeking quashment of the order, dated 30.5.2017, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sivasagar, in Criminal Revision No. 64(4)/2015, enhancing the maintenance allowance, granted to the sole respondent from Rs. 1,500/- to Rs. 5,000/-.
Perused the petition as well as the annexures furnished therewith including the impugned order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, referred to above.
I have also heard Mr. A.R. Shome, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. H.A. Ahmed, learned counsel for the sole respondent.
During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is a driver of a private vehicle and he is not in a position to pay an amount of Rs.
Page No.# 2/2
5,000/- per month as maintenance allowance to the sole respondent. On the other hand, learned counsel for the sole respondent has submitted that the petitioner earns Rs. 15,000/per month, and as such, he is able to pay the amount as directed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in the aforesaid revision.
I have perused the materials placed before this court.
The respondent No. 2 herself claimed that the salary of the petitioner is Rs. 8,000/-, but the learned trial court has calculated the income of the petitioner to be Rs. 15,000/- taking into account that he has 4 bighas landed property, without, however, indicating as to how much he earns from the aforesaid 4 bighas of land. The sole respondent is the wife of the petitioner and she is living separately is an admitted position. There is no dispute at the bar that the petitioner is an able bodied person, and as such, he is bound to maintain his wife.
The only issue before this court is about the amount of the maintenance allowance and no other issue has been raised before this court. On consideration of the materials on record, enhancement of Rs. 3,500/- at one go by the learned revisional court without proper assessment of the income of the petitioner appears to be incorrect, particularly when the specific income of the petitioner has been stated and admitted to be Rs. 8,000/- per month. The learned counsel for the sole respondent appears to have, in so many words, conceded that Rs. 5,000/- as maintenance allowance is in the higher side. On consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and taking into account that an amount of Rs. 3,000/- per month, considering the income of the petitioner, is the minimum to keep the body and soul of the sole respondent intact, an amount of Rs. 3,000/- would have been sufficient as maintenance allowance. Accordingly, this court reduces the maintenance allowance to Rs. 3,000/- with a direction to the petitioner to pay the same w.e.f. the date of the order of the learned trial court, regularly.
It has been submitted that some arrear amount has not been paid. The petitioner is directed to clear the arrear amount within 2 (two) months from today apart from paying monthly maintenance allowance regularly.
With the above observations and directions, this petition stands disposed of.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the enhanced maintenance allowance of Rs. 5,000/- warranted given the petitioner's assessed income.
Whether the petitioner, being able-bodied, is bound to maintain his wife living separately.
How the arrears of maintenance should be handled alongside the revised monthly allowance.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Rubul Hussain
Fareha Begum
Hitesh Kumar Sarma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
