AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
12 paragraphs · 215 wordsLeave granted.
The appellant approached this Court aggrieved by the Judgment dated 27.05.2014 passed by the High Court of Gauhati in Criminal Revision
Petition No. 396 of 2013. The order in favour of the appellant under Section 125 Cr.P.C. granting maintenance at the rate of Rs. 4000/- per
month from the month of September, 2013, has been set aside, mainly on the ground that the appellant failed to prove that she was the wife of
respondent - Subudh Das. According to the appellant, the respondent had fathered three children in her though the same was denied by the
respondent.
Hence, by order dated 28.02.2017, we directed the parties to go for a DNA test. The report of the DNA has been forwarded to us. It is
reported that the respondent is the father of the three children born to the appellant.
In the above circumstances, we set aside the impugned order passed by the High Court and restore the order dated 04.09.2013 passed by the
Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Hojai, Sankardev Nagar in M.R. Case no. 99 of 2008 filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
The arrears as on today shall be paid within a period of four months from today.
In view of the above, this appeal is disposed of.