Gauhati High Court
Shafikul Islam vs Aklima Khatun on 26 March, 2021
Author: Rumi Kumari Phukan
Bench: Rumi Kumari Phukan
Page No.# 1/2
GAHC010269572019
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Crl.Rev.P./469/2019
SHAFIKUL ISLAM
S/O MAHER ALI, VILL. BALIKURI, P.O. BALIKURI BAZAR, P.S.
KALGACHIA, DIST. BARPETA, ASSAM
VERSUS
AKLIMA KHATUN
D/O ANOWAR HUSSAIN, VILL. AND P.O. GUNIALGURI, P.S. KALGACHIA,
DIST. BARPETA, ASSAM, PIN-781319
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. R ALI
Advocate for the Respondent : MR. I H LASKAR
BEFORE
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE RUMI KUMARI PHUKAN
ORDER
26.03.2021 Heard Mr H A Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr S Alom, learned counsel for the respondent.
It appears from the materials on record that two proceedings were initiated by the present petitioner, vide FC (Crl.) No. 274/2018, under Section 125 CrPC and DV Case No. 709/2017 and both the cases ended after contesting, in the case under Section 125 CrPC. The petitioner was directed to pay Rs. 3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand Only) per month towards his wife and the minor son, vide order dated 27.08.2019, passed in the aforesaid FC Case and vide order dated 16.09.2019, passed in DV Case Page No.# 2/2 No. 709/2017, he was directed to pay monthly maintenance of Rs. 6,000/- (Rupees Six Thousand Only) per month to his wife and child along with a total compensation of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand Only).
At this stage, the petitioner, herein, has come before this Court with the present petition, challenging the maintenance order that has been passed under Section 125 of the CrPC, on the ground that a similar relief has already been obtained by his respondent/wife by filing 2 (two) cases in 2 (two) different forums and the petitioner is not able to pay such huge amount of compensation.
On such challenge, this Court stayed the execution of the order so passed by the Family Court in FC (Crl.) No. 274/2018, till the returnable date.
The learned counsel for the respondent by producing a copy of the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Barpeta dated 18.02.2021, submitted that in fact, the petitioner, herein, already has preferred an appeal against the finding of the DV Case No. 709/2017 and the appellate Court has remanded the matter back to the learned trial Court to decide afresh, with further direction to deposit Rs. 3,000/- per month to the respondent/wife, till disposal of the case.
It is to be noted that the petitioner while filing this petition has not referred about the fact that he preferred an appeal against the finding of the DV Case. The learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submitted that such an appeal was preferred subsequently, and has also contended that he is now ready to pay Rs. 3,000/- per month to the respondent/wife, as per the direction of the appellate Court, before the learned trial Court regularly. This Court has already stayed the execution of the maintenance case under Section 125 CrPC. It contends that same person cannot provide similar relief in two cases with his limited sources.
Now, as has been submitted, the petitioner will continue to pay Rs. 3,000/- per month to the respondent/wife, in terms of the order of the appellate Court in the DV case and the parties will inform the learned trial Court regarding the amount so passed in the maintenance case also and the learned Court will decide the matter having regard to the income and capacity of the petitioner. Both the parties will produce the final outcome of the DV Case No. 709/2017, before this Court.
Until further order(s), the proceeding pertaining to FC (Crl.) No. 274/2018, shall remain stayed. List the matter after 6 (six) weeks.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant