Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010205622024 2025:GAU-AS:10858 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Rev.P./458/2024 DIPENDRA CHANDRA DAS S/O LATE SUNANDRA RAM DAS, RESIDENT OF COLLEGE NAGAR, WARD NO. 15, A NEAR PARI MANDIR, PO BIDYAPARA, PS AND DIST HAILAKANDI, ASSAM VERSUS ANAMIKA ROY D/O LATE SUDHIR KUMAR ROY, W/O SRI DIPENDRA CHANDRA DAS, RESIDENT OF R.K MISSION ROAD WARD NO. 16, PO BIDYPARA, PS AND DIST DHUBRI, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MS. M D MEDHI, MS. J KALITA Advocate for the Respondent : SAMIM RAHMAN , MR. SARFRAZ NAWAZ,A S CHOUDHURY,MR. SURAJIT DAS BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY ORDER 13.08.2025 Heard Ms. M.D. Medhi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S. Das, learned counsel for the respondent. Page No.# 2/4 2. The instant criminal revision petition under Section 442 read with Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita [BNSS], 2023 is preferred to assail a Judgment dated 16.08.2024 passed by the Court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Dhubri [‘Family Court’, for short] in F.C. [Crl.] no. 06/2024. 3. The respondent herein as the petitioner, had instituted the proceedings of F.C. [Crl.] no. 06/2024 before the Family Court under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [‘Code’ and/or ‘CrPC’, for short] against the petitioner herein impleading him as the opposite party therein seeking maintenance. 4. From the materials on record, it has emerged that the marriage between the petitioner-husband and the respondent-wife was solemnized on 27.07.2020. After solemnization of the marriage, the petitioner led conjugal life with the respondent-wife at College Nagar, Dhubri. However, due to uncordial relation in their marital life, the respondent- wife started living in her parental house at R.K. Mission Road, Dhubri on and from 10.05.2022. In the petition filed by the respondent-wife before the Family Court, the respondent-wife had alleged that she was treated with cruelty and was driven out of her matrimonial home on 10.05.2022. It was alleged that the petitioner used to assault the respondent-wife mercilessly which had compelled her to take shelter in her parental home. 5. On receipt of summons, the petitioner as the opposite-party appeared in the proceedings of F.C. [Crl.] no. 06/2024 before the Family Court. Though efforts were made for settlement through reconciliation, the said efforts resulted in failure. The matter was also referred to the District Legal Services Authority, Dhubri for mediation but the mediation process also failed. 6. Subsequently, despite opportunity being granted to the petitioner to submit his written statement, no written statement was filed and as a result, the case proceeded for hearing. The respondent-wife adduced evidence through two witnesses including herself. Though opportunities were granted, the petitioner did not avail the opportunity to cross-examine the Page No.# 3/4 witnesses presented from the respondent-wife’s side. 7. Both the parties in support of their submissions, submitted affidavits on assists and liabilities. It was after hearing the parties, the Family Court had delivered the Judgment dated 16.08.2024. 8. Ms. Medhi, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the amount determined by the Family Court as monthly maintenance is beyond the ways and means of the petitioner as the petitioner is only an employee under a cable operator. 9. Mr. Das, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-wife has submitted that the assertions made by the respondent-wife during the maintenance proceedings had gone unrebutted. In her evidence-on-affidavit, the respondent-wife had asserted that the petitioner is a businessman dealing in telecommunication, cable network business, etc. and earns Rs. 50,000/- per month. No documentary evidence was, however, been adduced in respect of the business/income of the petitioner. 10. Notwithstanding the above, it has emerged that the petitioner has educational qualification of High School Leaving Certificate [HSLC] Examination pass. It has also emerged that the petitioner is an able bodied person suffering from no physical disability and he is presently aged about 48 years. Apart from his mother as dependant, the petitioner has no other dependant. Even if it is assumed that the petitioner is a labour having an income of Rs. 7,000/- per month, as claimed by him, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the direction given by the Family Court to pay an amount of Rs. 3,000/- as monthly maintenance to the respondent-wife. The petitioner being an able bodied person has obligation to pay monthly maintenance to his wife so that the respondent-wife can have the basic necessities of life for living at least a decent living. The petitioner cannot escape the responsibility and neglect to maintain his wife, more particularly, for the reason that there is evidence on record that the respondent-wife has no independent income. The provision for maintenance is made to achieve a social purpose and its object is to prevent vagrancy and destitution. As per law, the wife is entitled to live a life in the similar manner as she would have lived in the house of Page No.# 4/4 her husband. 11. From all standpoints, the amount of Rs. 3,000/- granted as monthly maintenance amount cannot be regarded as an unjustified amount considering the present situation and cost of living index. Resultantly, this criminal revision petition is found to be bereft any merits. Consequently, the criminal revision petition is dismissed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant