Dismissed

Rinku Das v. Smt. Ruma Dhar

Gauhati HC9 Sept 2019Crl.Pet./1044/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Gauhati High Court disposed of a criminal revision petition challenging a Sessions Court order that reduced interim maintenance. The Court held that without positive income evidence, interference is unjustified. It directed the trial court to expedite the main petition and examine witnesses within three months.

What did the court decide?

The petition is disposed of; direction to the trial court to expedite the matter, examine witnesses, and dispose of the main petition within three months.

Rinku Das Vs Smt. Ruma Dhar — Maintenance and Alimony | Gauhati HC (2019)

¶1

Page No.# 1/3

¶2

GAHC010211172019

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT

¶4

(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶5

Case No. : Crl.Pet. 1044/2019

¶6

1:RINKU DAS

¶7

S/O SRI JOHAR LAL DAS, R/O CHETIA-1 BASTI, P.O. AND P.S.-ROING, DISTROING, ARUNACHAL PRADESH, PIN-792110

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

1:SMT. RUMA DHAR

¶10

D/O SRI BIDUR DHAR, R/O NIZARAPAR, MARGHERITA TOWN, NEAR HINDU MILAN MANDIR, P.O. AND P.S.-MARGHERITA, DIST-TINSUKIA (ASSAM), PIN-786181

¶11

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR G P BHOWMIK Advocate for the Respondent :

¶12

BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE RUMI KUMARI PHUKAN

¶13

ORDER

¶14

Date : 09-09-2019

¶15

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶16

By way of this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner has challenged the order

¶17

passed by the learned court of Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) No.1, Margherita, Tinsukia in Criminal Revision No.12(2)/2018 whereby the petitioner has been directed to pay maintenance of Rs.3000 modifying the order passed by the learned trial court, who has granted interim maintenance of Rs.5000/- by its order dated 07.05.2018 in MC No.01/2018. Narrating the fact it has been submitted that the respondent wife filed the aforesaid

¶18

Page No.# 2/3

¶19

maintenance petition vide MC No.01/2018 before the leaned trial court paying for monthly maintenance along with the interim maintenance. The petitioner herein being the opposite party in the said case filed his written statement that he being a shop owner has only the income of Rs.6000/- per month and the learned trial court after hearing the parties passed an order on 07.05.2018 directing the petitioner for interim maintenance of Rs.5000 per month. While the matter was assailed before the sessions court by way of revision, the learned Sessions court has however, modified the order by reducing the interim maintenance from Rs.5000/- to Rs.3000/- per month and directed the petitioner to pay the same accordingly. Still yet, the petitioner being not satisfied with the aforesaid order and has preferred the present petition for quashing the aforesaid order passed by the learned revisional court. I have heard the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the documents annexed. It is to be noted that the petitioner herein has already filed written statement before the court and his only assertion is that he has other family members to maintain and the respondent wife fled from her matrimonial house at her own. Presently, the petitioner having income of Rs.6000/- per month only and he is unable to pay the amount as interim maintenance to the respondent/wife as directed.

¶20

So far as the contention of the petitioner as regard the income it is stated that he has a watch shop having income of Rs.6000/- per month whereas according to the respondent/wife he is earning about Rs.40,000/- per month from the said shop of watch.

¶21

Things remains that the actual income of the petitioner has not yet brought on record as per assertion made by the present petitioner. The prayer for interim maintenance has been granted by the court having regard to the pleadings between the parties and the learned revisional court has already reduced the amount and has directed the petitioner to pay

¶22

Page No.# 3/3

¶23

maintenance of Rs.3000/- per month and of course it is till disposal of the main petition. That being so, challenging the same aspect again and again where there is no positive evidence as regard the income of the present petitioner it will not be justified to interfere into the order passed by the revisional court. Whereas the parties should appear before the court and adduce proper evidence to prove his income so that the learned trial court can decide the proper income of the petitioner. Interim maintenance is provided for subsistence living of a person having regard to the status of the parties and in the considered view of the court direction for interim maintenance of Rs.3000/- by the revisional court should not be interfered.

¶24

Considering the entirety of the matter the present petition stands disposed of with a direction to the trial court to expedite the matter by examining the witnesses adduced by the parties and dispose of the matter within a period of three months from today.

¶25

JUDGE

¶26

Comparing Assistant

Rinku Das v. Smt. Ruma Dhar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rinku Das v. Smt. Ruma Dhar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manzur Rahman Barbhuiya @ Manjur Rahman Barbhuiya Vs the State of Assam and Anr.

Biju Kotoky @ Biju Kataky Vs the State of Assam

Mrs. Debajani Kalita Deka Vs the State of Assam and Anr.

Punam Devi Vs the State of Assam

Suraj Kumar Vs Ritumbra

Sarfaraj Ahmed (Chandi) and Anr. Vs the State of Assam