A revision petition challenging the quantum of maintenance granted to a wife and child under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The revision was dismissed as the amount was not considered unreasonably high given the circumstances.
Revision petition dismissed.
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
GAHC010019222019
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Crl.Rev.P. 74/2019
1:ALEP KHAN
S/O. GARJAN KHAN, VILL. GELABIL, P.S. TARABARI, P.O. GOMAFULBARI, DIST. BARPETA, ASSAM-781302
VERSUS
1:RAHIMA KHATUN
D/O. LT. ABDUL HAI, VILL. KIRKIRA, MOUZA- PAKA, P.S. SARTHEBARI, P.O. GULIBANDA, DIST. BARPETA, ASSAM-781352.
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR H BHUYAN
Advocate for the Respondent :
BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MIR ALFAZ ALI
ORDER
Date : 11-03-2019
Heard Md. H Bhuyan, learned counsel for the petitioner.
The challenge in this revision petition is to the order dated 10.10.2018 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Barpeta in F.C. (Crl) 194/2017.
Having regard to the grounds of challenge against the impugned order, service of notice is not deemed necessary and this petition is taken up for disposal at the stage of motion itself.
The respondent herein, is the wife of the revision petitioner. The respondent
Page No.# 2/2
as first party filed an application before the learned Family Court under Section 125 Cr.P.C., seeking maintenance for herself and one of her child @ Rs.5,000/- and Rs.3,000/- respectively.
Notice for the said petition was issued and the present petitioner contested the petition by filing written objection. After hearing learned counsel for both the sides, learned Family Court passed the impugned order whereby, the learned Family Court granted maintenance @ Rs.1,500/- per month in favour of the respondent wife and Rs.1,000/- in favour of her child respectively.
It appears from the impugned order that the relationship between the parties were not disputed. The impugned order has been challenged and sought to be revised on the sole ground, that the quantum of maintenance granted by the Court below was on the higher side, as the petitioner husband is a daily labour. From the impugned order, it appears that the learned trial Court having considered the evidence and materials brought on record, fixed the maintenance as indicated above and such order does not appears to have suffered from any illegality or impropriety. That apart, the quantum of Rs.1500/- per month to the respondent and Rs.1,000/- for the child itself, rather, appears on lower side having regard to the present day context and therefore, I do not find any merit in this revision petition and accordingly, this petition is dismissed.
J U D G E
Smita
Comparing Assistant
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the quantum of maintenance granted by the trial court was unreasonably high.
Whether the impugned order suffers from any illegality or impropriety warranting revision.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
ALEP KHAN
RAHIMA KHATUN
MIR ALFAZ ALI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
