Dismissed¶49

Rabindra Dutta v. the State of Assam and Anr.

Gauhati HC3 Mar 2025Crl.Pet./725/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Interim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC; maintainability of Section 482 CrPC petition against interim Family Court order; Family Court Kamrup (M) Guwahati F.C (Crl.) No. 239/2016; Rs. 2000/- monthly interim maintenance allowance upheld; grant not supported by assets or liabilities statement; Vijay Kumar Prasad Vs. State of Bihar & Others (2004) 5 SCC 196 referred by respondent's counsel; Gauhati High Court Crl.Pet./725/2017 decided 04.03.2025 by Kaushik Goswami, J.; criminal petition dismissed, no cost; Family Court directed to dispose of maintenance case on merit expeditiously.

What did the court decide?

None; the criminal petition was dismissed with no cost, leaving the Family Court's interim maintenance order intact. ¶49

Rabindra Dutta Vs the State of Assam and Anr. — Maintenance and Alimony | Gauhati HC (2025)

Page No.# 1/5

GAHC010038402017

undefined

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

¶5

Case No. : Crl.Pet./725/2017

¶6

RABINDRA DUTTA

¶7

S/O- LATE CHARULAL DUTTA, R/O- APURBA RESIDENCY, ANDU RABHA PATH, P.O- UDALBAKRA, P.S- DISPUR, DIST- KAMRUPM, ASSAM

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

THE STATE OF ASSAM and ANR.

¶10

2:SAMPA KUNDU DUTTA D/O- KRISHNA LAL KUNDU R/O- NETAJI PATH HOUSE NO. 15/A P.O- UDALBAKRA P.S- DISPUR PIN- 781006 DIST- KAMRUPM ASSA

¶11

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.S C BISWAS, N HASAN,MR A HUSSAIN,MR F HAQUE,MR. B K SEN,MS.K L R YANTHAN

¶12

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR.P K R CHOUDHURY(R-2),MS.P UPAMANYU(R2),MRG DEKA(R-2)

¶13

BEFORE

¶14

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI

¶15

Page No.# 2/5

¶16

04.03.2025

¶17

Heard Mr. B.K. Sen, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P.K.R. Choudhury, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 and Ms. S.H. Bora, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State respondents.

¶18

2. By way of this petition under Section 482 of CrPC, 1973, the petitioner is assailing the impugned Order dated 20.07.2017 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Kamrup (M) in Guwahati in F.C (Crl.) No. 239/2016, whereby the petitioner was directed to pay monthly maintenance of Rs. 2000/to the respondent as interim maintenance allowance.

¶19

3. The facts of the case is that the respondent No. 2 by an application under Section 125 CrPC prayed before the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court for grant of monthly maintenance on the ground interalia that the marriage of the respondent No. 2 was solemnized on 20.05.2015 as per Hindu Rites and Rituals at Kamakhya Temple, Guwahati.

¶20

4. It is the further case of the respondent No. 2 that the parties started their conjugal life at her matrimonial house situated at Odalbakra, Guwahati and thereafter, she was subjected to both mental and physical torture on demand of dowry by her husband and family members of the petitioner. It is in this background that the application for grant of maintenance was filed, when interim maintenance allowance was granted. Assailing the said order, the present petition is being filed.

¶21

5. Mr. B.K. Sen, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the grant of interim compensation of Rs. 2000/- monthly is not supported by any assets or

¶22

Page No.# 3/5

¶23

liabilities statement and hence, the same is erroneous.

¶24

6. Per contra, Mr. P.K.R. Choudhury, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 submits that the present criminal petition is liable to be dismissed as the learned Family Court has not committed any palpable and manifest error in granting interim compensation of Rs. 2000/-. He further submits that the present criminal petition under Section 482 CrPC is not maintainable inasmuch as the same is against the interim order passed under Section 125 CrPC proceedings.

¶25

In support of the aforesaid submission, he relies upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Vijay Kumar Prasad Vs. State of Bihar & Others , reported in (2004) 5 SCC 196 at paragraph 14.

¶26

7. I have heard the submissions advanced by both the learned counsels appearing for the contending parties and I have perused the materials available on records. I have also considered the case law cited at the bar.

¶27

8. It appears that the present criminal petition is against the interim compensation of Rs. 2000/- granted by the learned Family Court.

¶28

9. Apt to refer to the relevant portion of the impugned Order of the learned Family Court-II, Kamrup, Guwahati dated 20.07.2017, which is reproduced hereunder for ready reference:-

¶29

“F.C. (Crl.) Case No. 239/2016

¶30

20.07.2017

¶31

The instant petition is instituted by the petitioner Smt. Shampa Kundu u/s 125 Cr.p.c. against the opposite party Sri Rabindra Dutta claiming maintenance allowance of Rs.10,000/- per month for herself, alongwith a prayer for interim maintenance allowance of Rs.5,000/- per month.

¶32

Heard both the parties on the prayer of petitioner for granting her interim maintenance

¶33

Page No.# 4/5

¶34

allowance.

¶35

The petitioner stated that due to the various tortures by the opposite party, she was compelled to leave her matrimonial home and presently, she is staying at her parental home. She is facing great financial hardship to maintain herself as she does not have any income and as the opposite party has failed to give her any sort of maintenance allowance till date. It is stated that the opposite party earns Rs.20,000/- per month.

¶36

The opposite party has not disputed his marriage with the petitioner. The opposite party categorically stated that presently, he does not have any income as the clinic, where he used to work, got closed. It is further stated that he is not liable to make any payment of maintenance to the petitioner as he instituted a civil case against her seeking decree for nullity as their marriage, till date has not been consummated due to the impotency of the petitioner. It appears that the opposite party has not disputed the fact of petitioner's financial dependence.

¶37

The petitioner admitted that her marriage has been consummated but she does not appear to admit the fact of her impotence.

¶38

Perused the case record.

¶39

Perusal of the original petition being filed by petitioner reveals various facts being brought by the petitioner in respect of torture being inflicted on her by the opposite party, which is categorically denied by the opposite party in the written statement. It appears that the opposite party has further brought the fact of non consummation of their marriage due to the impotency of the petitioner.

¶40

It is pertinent to mention that the aforesaid disputed fact requires decision on merit after getting due evidence from both the sides.

¶41

It is further pertinent to mention that though the opposite party, denied to have any income but the materials on record nowhere suggest that the opposite party to be suffering from any infirmities or any disease rather it suggest him to be a able bodied person, in result suggest him having sufficient means, as per the observations of the Hon'ble Apex in its various judgments.

¶42

Hence, in the meantime, having regard to the aforesaid admitted facts and the other relevant factors into consideration, the opposite party is directed to pay Rs.2,000/- (two thousand) monthly, as interim maintenance allowance, to the petitioner till the instant case is disposed of, on merit, from the date of this order.

¶43

Fixed 08/08/2017 for evidence of the petitioner.”

¶44

10. Reading of the aforesaid order, it is apparent that the learned Family Court

¶45

Page No.# 5/5

¶46

after considering the facts and circumstances of the case was pleased to direct payment of Rs. 2000/- monthly as interim maintenance allowance to the petitioner till the maintenance case is disposed of on merit from the date of the aforesaid order.

¶47

11. The learned Family Court is entitled to grant interim maintenance under law and as such, there appears no palpable and manifest error in the order of the learned Family Court directing payment of interim maintenance allowance.

¶48

12. That being so, the criminal petition fails.

¶49

13. Accordingly, the present criminal petition stands dismissed. No cost.

¶50

14. It is needless to clarify that the learned Family Court shall dispose of the maintenance case on merit expeditiously.

¶51

JUDGE

¶52

Comparing Assistant

Rabindra Dutta v. the State of Assam and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rabindra Dutta v. the State of Assam and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rakesh Kumar Singh Vs Abha Singh

Ramen Kumar Das Vs the State of Assam and Anr.

Bhim Kanta Dutta and Anr. Vs the State of Assam

Mithun Debnath and 5 Ors. Vs Anima Debnath

Sahanur Alom Vs the State of Assam and Anr.

Kunja Lahon Saikia, Vs Mrinal Saikia and Anr.