Hussain Ali vs Rahima Begum

Rumi Kumari Phukan, J

Heard Mr. A. Ali, learned counsel for the petitioner. None is present for and on behalf of the sole respondent.

The present revision petition u/s.401 read with 482 CrPC has been preferred against the order dated 04.07.2014, passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (FTC), Darrang, Mangaldoi in Criminal Revision No.10(D-1)/2014, whereby the learned Judge directed the petitioner to pay maintenance @ Rs.1200/- per month to the opposite party (respondent in the present petition).

Briefly stated, the case of the petitioner is that the respondent/wife filed an application u/s.125 CrPC, praying for maintenance from the petitioner with the allegation that despite their 27 years of married life and having six children, the petitioner married again and drove out the respondent/wife from his house, for which she took shelter in her parental house. Although the respondent/wife returned to the matrimonial house again but due to the torture meted upon her, she returned to her parental house and the present petitioner has not provided any maintenance to her for which she prayed for maintenance.

The present petitioner being the party respondent, contested the case and by filing written statement submitted that his wife is a quarrelsome lady and left her matrimonial home by herself without any reason and refused to return to her matrimonial house. It is stated that he has no proper income and dependent only on cultivation. Further it is stated that he has already given two bighas of land to his wife. So he is under no obligation to provide maintenance to her.

The learned trial Court on the basis of pleadings and the evidence adduced by the parties came to the findings that there was neglect on the part of the petitioner to pay maintenance, as the respondent/wife is unable to maintain herself and is dependent upon her son and parents. The Court has also appreciated the fact that although two bighas of land was given to his respondent/wife but the same was occupied by her son and the land stood in his name. there is also evidence on record that the petitioner never went to bring back his wife neither provided any maintenance after she left his house. Accordingly the learned trial Court directed the petitioner to pay maintenance @ Rs.1500/-per month, by the order dated 07.11.2013.

On the revision preferred by the petitioner, the Revisional Court also on the basis of evidence of both sides it was found that the land which was given to his mother (respondent/wife), is under the possession of his son and his father/present petitioner has not provided any maintenance to his wife. It was also admitted position that the respondent/wife has no source of income for her livelihood. Appreciating the entire evidence, the learned Revisional Court also held that the land that was given to the respondent/wife was not under her possession nor she is enjoying any income from the said plot of land and although initially she resided with her son but since last three years, she is taking shelter in the house of her parents and neither the second party nor her son is providing any maintenance to her.

Appreciating the entire matters and the capacity of the present petitioner regarding his income etc., the learned Revisional Court has reduced the maintenance to Rs.1200/- per month, with a direction to pay the same in terms of the order so passed by the trial Court.

Now the present revision has been preferred to challenge the aforesaid order of Revisional Court.

I have heard the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner, who has contended that the present petitioner/husband in not under the obligation to provide any maintenance to the respondent/wife, as he has already distributed the entire land to his sons and also provided two bighas of land to his respondent/wife and she willingly went away from his house to remain separately with their sons leaving behind her husband after long 30 years of marriage.

On perusal of entire evidence and materials available before the Court, it appears that there is no sort of illegality or irregularity in the concurrent findings of the Courts below. All the factual aspects have been discussed and dealt with in due manner.

Now the sole contention of the petitioner that as he has given two bighas of land to his wife/respondent, which she is enjoying, so he is under no obligation to provide maintenance to his wife, cannot at all be maintained as the evidence indicates that the respondent/wife is not enjoying any income from the said land. Rather her son is in occupation of the same who is also not providing any maintenance to her. The plea of the present petitioner that his wife/respondent being a quarrelsome lady, left his house is also not proved. Despite having six children and after a long span of married life, the petitioner married another woman and in such backdrop, having quarrel with her husband and finally took shelter in her parental house, appears to be a natural consequence.

The petitioner being the husband of the respondent cannot throw away his obligation to any and even to the son to maintain his legally married wife on the pretext of other. Only by giving two bighas of land to his wife, without there being anything to show that she is gaining from the use of said land, it cannot be said that the respondent wife has source of income to maintain herself.

On due appreciation of all the materials on record, I find no any scope to interfere with the order of the Revisional Court and the petition being devoid of merit, the same is dismissed.

Return back the LCRs to the concerned Court below with a copy of this judgment.