Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010000742023 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Rev.P./308/2023 PINKU PAUL @ SANKU PAUL S/O SHIREN PAUL, R/O VILL.-DONKA MAKAM, P.S.-DONKA, DIST.-KARBI ANGLONG, ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REP. BY PP, ASSAM 2:SMTI. RIMPI PAUL @ PINKI PAUL D/O SRI UMANANDA DEY R/O VILL.- DAKHIN VIDYASAGAR P.S.-HOJAI DIST.-HOJAI ASSAM PIN-782435 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. JUNM LASKAR, Advocate for the Respondent : MS. K PHUKAN (LEGAL AID COUNSEL FOR R-2), Page No.# 2/5 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA ORDER Date : 14.11.2025 1. Heard Mr. J.U.N.M Laskar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. K Phukan, learned Legal Aid Counsel appearing for sole respondent. 2. This Revision Petition is directed against the impugned final order dated 28.04.2016 passed by the Ld. Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (M), Hojai in M.R Case No. 278/2013 U/S 125 Cr.P.C directing the petitioner/2nd party to pay a monthly maintenance of Rs. 1800/- to the 1st Party/respondent from the date of presentation of the maintenance application i.e. 28.10.2013. 3. The facts leading to the impugned order is that the Respondent/1st Party filed a maintenance case Under Section 125 Cr.P.C. on 28.10.2013 before the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (M), Hojai at Sankardev Nagar registered as M.R. Case No. 278/2013 Under Section 125 Cr.P.C stating, inter-alia, that on 17.08.2003, she got married with the petitioner/2nd Party as per Hindu rites and rituals. She brought her necessary stridhan articles at the time of her marriage and started conjugal relationship in the house of her husband. But the second party/her husband began to torture her mentally as well as physically demanding dowry of Rs. 50,000/- immediately after 3(three) months of her marriage and she had to pay Rs. 10,000/- to her husband. She was assaulted by the 2nd Party after 3 months of her marriage, when she failed to fulfill his unlawful demand of dowry and her husband/2nd Party took all her belongings forcefully and also took her signature on a blank paper and thereafter, physically tortured her, drove her out from her matrimonial house. The 2nd Party had illegally married another woman and presently she is living in her father's house. The 1st Party has no income and the 2nd Party is a businessman and a wealthy Page No.# 3/5 person. The 2nd Party had neither enquired about her well being nor provided any maintenance to her. Hence, the Respondent/1st Party prayed for monthly maintenance allowances for herself @ Rs. 7000/-. That the petitioner appeared in pursuance to notice of the Court and contested the case by filing his written statement on 30.10.2014. The plea of the second party is that the maintenance case is totally false, baseless and fabricated one. He denied all the allegations leveled by the 1st Party. He stated that no valid marriage was solemnized in between him and the 1st Party in the year 2003. In Siva temple in a Puja, when they visited the temple along with other devotees, the local people told him that his marriage was solemnized with the 1st Party during the Puja and they forced him to take away the 1st Party as his wife. Then 2nd Party took the 1st Party to his house and informed about the matter to his father but subsequently, he came to know that the 1st Party is a patient of high blood sugar and mentally sick person. Thereafter, a village meeting was held and in the meeting, it was decided that relatives of the 1st Party would take her back without demanding any compensation from him. Accordingly, on 15.12.2003, relatives of the 1st Party took her to her parents' house and on 20.09.2003, the father of the 1st Party also agreed with the 2nd Party, also signed by the 1st Party, in writing to bear medical expenses for the 1st Party, if necessary. 1st Party was medically examined on 15.09.2003, 26.09.2003 at NL Medicare, GNRC Guwahati and on 15.09.2005 at L.G.B.R Hospital, Tezpur, from which he came to know that, there is no chance of her improvement in health. The 1st Party had filed this case about 11 years later from the date of living separately from him, by making some false and baseless allegations at the instigation of her relatives. He has no income and property as asserted by the 1st Party except a Paan shop nearby the road, at Donka Mukam in the district Karbi Anglong and has no sufficient income. Thus, he prayed to dismiss the application filed by the 1st Party. 4. Mr. J.U.N.M Laskar, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Page No.# 4/5 respondent wife had left the petitioner on the basis of a mutual agreement upon realizing that the respondent wife was suffering from various ailments and a divorce deed was also executed which is annexed to the instant petition. This took place in the year 2003 and after 9(nine) years the respondent wife had submitted the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C seeking maintenance. It is contended that since they had separated by mutual consent, it was not open for the respondent wife to seek maintenance and that too after 9(nine) long years. It is further submitted that the petitioner is running a Paan shop and has remarried after his separation and has 2(two) children to look after and cannot afford to pay a maintenance amount of Rs. 1800/- per month as granted by the Ld. Court below. 5. On the other hand, Ms. K Phukan, learned Legal Aid Counsel appearing for sole respondent wife submits that she is unable to maintain herself at present, although earlier she was being looked after by her parents and there is no bar under Section 125 Cr.P.C as regards the time within which to approach the Court seeking maintenance. 6. A perusal of the impugned order would show that the Court has come to a definite finding that the present petitioner, who was the 2nd party in the proceeding before the Ld. Court below, could not prove that there was any mutual divorce between the parties or any amicable settlement as asserted by him. That being the case, the respondent continues to be the legally married wife of the petitioner and therefore, she has every right under the law to seek maintenance from her husband at any point of time when she becomes unable to maintain herself. Further, the Ld. Trial Court, upon appreciation of the evidence, came to the finding that the petitioner has neglected to maintain his wife and no infirmity in the impugned order could be pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner except to say that the amount of Rs. 1800/- per month is too much for the petitioner to bear. The amount of Rs. 1800/- per month was granted in the year 2016 and since Page No.# 5/5 then, another 9(nine) years have elapsed and therefore, even if it is to be accepted for the sake of argument that the said amount was on the higher side at that point of time, it cannot be regarded as an unreasonable figure at present. 7. In view of the above, I do not find any such infirmity in the impugned order calling for interference by the Revisional Court in exercise of its powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Consequently, the revision stands dismissed. 8. Send back the Records. JUDGE Comparing Assistant