Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Ss vs Serial No. 190 Mithu Biswas And Anr on 23 June, 2015
Author: Joymalya Bagchi
Bench: Joymalya Bagchi
1
C. R. R. 1673 of 2015
23.06.2015 Prasanta Kumar Biswas
ss. Vs.
Serial No. 190 Mithu Biswas and Anr.
Ct. 28
Re: Application under Section 482/ 401 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973.
------------
The order dated April 7, 2015 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Nadia in Criminal Motion No. 16 of 2015 affirming the dated September 06, 2014 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nadia at Krishnagar in connection with M.R. Case No. 756 (IV)2013 under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure directing payment of maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs. 4,000/- (Rupees four thousand) only per month to the opposite party no.1/wife and Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees two thousand) only per month to the minor daughter has been assailed.
It appears that the parties had entered into a matrimony in 2002 as per Hindu rites and customs and a daughter was born from the said wedlock. The wife was physically assaulted and driven out from the in-laws' house. A criminal case was registered over the said issue. The opposite party no.1 has instituted a proceeding under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure stating the fact that the petitioner earns Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand) only per month from business of "Bhusi Mal" and has brick built house, landed properties and shallow machine. She prayed for Rs. 7,000/- (Rupees seven thousand) only per month for herself and Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) only per month for her daughter as maintenance.
Upon evidence being recorded the learned Magistrate by the impugned order directed the petitioner to pay Rs. 4,000/-(Rupees four 2 thousand) only per month to the opposite party no.1 and Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees two thousand) only per month to the minor daughter.
In revision, the order was upheld. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the income of the husband has not been established and that quantum of maintenance fixed by the courts below was excess.
I have considered the materials on record. Relationship between the parties is admitted. There is no evidence on record that the opposite party no.1/wife has independent source of income. Criminal case is pending at the behest of the opposite party no.1/wife over the issue of physical assault.
Accordingly, it cannot be said that the opposite party no.1/wife had withdrawn herself from the company of the husband without sufficient cause. Evidence has come on record that the husband/petitioner has business income and sufficient properties, and as such, it cannot be said that the findings of the courts below as to the quantum of maintenance are perverse or contrary to law which calls for no interference by this Court in revisional jurisdiction.
Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed.
(Joymalya Bagchi, J.)