Devashish Das vs Bharati Dey Das

Heard Mr. B.K. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S.C. Biswas, learned counsel for the respondent.

This Criminal Revision Petition under Section 19(4) of the Family Court’s Act, 1984 is directed against the Judgment and Order, dated

30.09.2013, passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Cachar at Silchar in FC (Crl) Case No. 107/2011 whereby the petition filed by the

respondent under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was allowed directing the petitioner to pay maintenance @ Rs.5000/- only, per month, from the date of the

order.

The contentions of the respondent in the aforementioned proceeding are that she got married with the petitioner on 10.05.2009 and thereafter, they

lived at Guwahati and Jorhat respectively in the houses of the petitioner as husband and wife. After few months of their marriage, the petitioner and

his family members started to perpetrate physical and mental cruelty on her, raising questions on her age with reference to her school and college

certificates. In the meantime, as she conceived and became pregnant of 3 (three) months, she was taken to her parental home, but unfortunately

abortion was caused. During the aforesaid period, the petitioner, despite knowing of the incident of abortion, did not visit her to take stock of her health

condition. However, on 30.10.2010, the brother of the respondent took the respondent to the house of the petitioner at Jorhat and left there. However,

the petitioner again started to inflict mental cruelty on her by way of rebuking with filthy language and subjecting her to starvation, with a clear

intention to pressurize her to leave his house. On being informed, her brother brought her back to her parental home on 26.12.2010 and since then, she

has been in her parental home. The petitioner did not even enquire about her nor he made any attempt to bring her back and did not even pay any

maintenance despite she having no source of income to maintain herself. According to the respondent, the petitioner is working as Assistant Director

of Central Muga-Endi Research and Training Centre drawing a monthly salary of Rs.40,000/-, besides having landed property at Guwahati. Hence,

the petition was filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. claiming maintenance allowance of Rs.15,000/- per month.

The petitioner contested the proceeding by filing a written statement, where he admitted his marriage with the respondent, but denied all the

allegations levelled by the respondent against him. The petitioner, inter-alia, contended that their marriage was settled after negotiations, pursuant to a

matrimonial advertisement in a local daily. The petitioner further contended that the respondent is elder to him by about 3 (three) years, which is not

permissible under the customary rites and rituals and thus, as fraud was committed, the respondent is not entitled to any maintenance.

On perusal of the pleadings, the learned trial Court took up the following points for a just decision in the proceeding-

(i) Whether the 1st party has justified cause or sufficient reason to live apart from the 2nd party?

(ii) Whether the 2nd party, in spite of having sufficient means, has neglected to maintain the 1st party?

(iii) Whether the 1st party is unable to maintain herself?

(iv) Whether the 1st party is entitled to get maintenance allowance from the 2nd party? If so, what would be the reasonable amount of such

maintenance?

In course of hearing, the respondent examined 2 (two) witnesses including herself while the petitioner examined himself. Thereafter, on closing the

evidence and hearing of both sides and appreciation of evidence adduced by both sides, the learned trial Court passed the impugned Judgment and

Order as stated above.

Being aggrieved, the petitioner has preferred the instant Revision Petition against the impugned Judgment and Order.

Mr. B.K. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the respondent played fraud on the petitioner by concealing her actual age in the

advertisement, where her age as on 01.02.2009 (the date of advertisement) was stated to be 31 years, although she was aged 41 years and thus, she

was older than the petitioner by 2 ½ years, which was although proved by Ext. A and Ext. B, the learned Court below did not take into consideration

of this material aspect of evidence on record. According to Mr. Singh, the suppression of the actual age of the respondent at the time of marriage with

the petitioner amounted to cruelty on the latter. Mr. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, further submitted that the petitioner never subjected the

respondent to any form of cruelty and in fact, she, realising her family’s fraud committed on him, voluntarily left the house of the petitioner without

any other compelling reason and has started throwing all false blames on him and as such, she, who has adequate knowledge in the beautician course,

is not entitled to maintenance allowance under Section 125(4) Cr.P.C.

Per contra, Mr. S.C. Biswas, learned counsel for the respondent, submitted that the pleadings and evidence clearly show that there is no dispute

regarding the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent and their living as husband and wife and as such, the respondent’s claim for

maintenance allowance is to be considered within the object and reasons behind the incorporation of Section 125 Cr.P.C. by the legislature. According

to Mr. Biswas, the evidence on record establishes the requirements making the respondent entitle for maintenance from the petitioner under Section

125 Cr.P.C.

I have given due consideration to the above arguments advanced by the learned counsel for both the sides and perused the records including the

impugned Judgment and Order.

It needs to be mentioned that Section 125 Cr.P.C. provides a speedy and summary remedy by way of a summary procedure so that the women,

children or parents, who need financial support gets justice expeditiously. In order to invoke the aforesaid remedy, the petitioner must be a person

under any of the categories mentioned in clause (a) to (d) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 125 Cr.P.C. and the petitioner must be unable to maintain

himself/herself and further, that the respondent neglected or refused to maintain the petitioner despite having sufficient means. As Section 125 Cr.P.C.

proceeds on de facto marriage and not de jure marriage, the validity of the marriage cannot be a ground to refuse maintenance, provided other

conditions are fulfilled.

It is noticed that the learned Court below, after appreciating the evidence adduced by both sides, decided the first three points in the affirmative

and accordingly, ascertained the quantum of maintenance to the respondent to be paid by her husband, while deciding the point No. (iv). In point No.

(i), the learned Court discussed the pleas of alleged fraud practised on the petitioner by the family members of the respondent at the time of

negotiation for marriage, regarding the actual age of the respondent, who was, in fact, elder to the petitioner and that she voluntarily left the

petitioner’s house, in the context of the evidence adduced by both sides. The learned Court below rejected both the aforesaid pleas observing that

there is no dispute regarding their marriage and that they co-habited in the house of the petitioner and further, that normally a married woman does not

recourse to drastic step like voluntary withdrawal from the matrimonial/husband’s house unless compelling situation arises. The learned Court also

observed that raising of age dispute after marriage, by the petitioner manifestly amounted to cruelty on his wife/the respondent herein. The learned

Court also considered in detail, the expression ‘sufficient means’ in Section 125 Cr.P.C. and in this context, the evidence on record and having

come to a conclusion that the petitioner, who is a senior government officer with a monthly salary of Rs. 30,000, neglected/refused to pay maintenance

to his admitted legally married wife/the respondent, who has no source of income, he has a moral and legal obligation to pay maintenance to her.

Needless to say, that in the backdrop of facts stated above, the question of fraud allegedly played in marriage by the family of the wife, which may

have some bearing in the validity of marriage, is certainly a civil wrong, and as such, that ground only cannot deprive a legally married wife of her right

to maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

For the above stated reasons, this Court is of the considered opinion that no interference in the impugned Judgment and Order, in revision is

warranted.

Accordingly, the revision stands dismissed. The interim order, dated 11.11.2013, passed by this Court stands vacated.

The petitioner/husband shall pay the entire amount of maintenance allowance as directed by the learned Court below, within a period of 3 (three)

months to the respondent/wife, failing which the learned Court below shall proceed in accordance with law to realise the amount.

Return the LCR.