Page No.# 1/7 GAHC010016372014 2025:GAU-AS:14903 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Rev.P./431/2014 NAYAN BARUAH S/O LT. GOPAL BARUAH R/O PANDU NEW COLONY, DAKHAIYA PATTY GUWAHATI- 781012, P.O. PANDU, P.S. JALUKBARI DIST. KAMRUP METRO, ASSAM. VERSUS SMT. NITA RAJBHAR BARUAH W/O SRI NAYAN BARUAH D/O SRI SITA RAM RAJBHAR R/O NEW COLONY, PANDU, GUWAHATI PS. JALUKBARI DIST. KAMRUP METRO, ASSAM, PIN- 781012. Advocate for the Petitioner : MS.P C B NAIR, MR.B K JAIN,MR.S K JAIN Advocate for the Respondent : MR.S AHMED, MR.N UDDIN,MRM RAHMAN,MR.M HUSSAIN,MS.S BEGUM BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR ORDER 04.11.2025 None appears for the parties on call. 2. The present criminal revision petition has been instituted assailing the judgment dated 16.08.2014 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Page No.# 2/7 Court-II, Kamrup granting maintenance of Rs.2,000/- per month to the respondent, herein. The respondent, herein, had instituted an application being F.C.(Crl.) No.465/2012 under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, claiming maintenance from the petitioner, herein. In the said petition, the respondent, herein, had contended that the marriage between the petitioner, herein, and the respondent was solemnized on 15.05.2007. It was further projected that a male child was born out of the said wedlock. In the said petition, the respondent, herein, had projected that after passing of 2 years of marriage, the petitioner, herein, and his family members started physical as well as mental torture upon the respondent, herein, and had demanded dowry. It was projected that in the month of December, 2011, the petitioner, herein, had turned out the respondent, herein, from her matrimonial house after assaulting her and accordingly, she was forced to take residence at her parental house which was located in the same locality. The petitioner, herein, responded to the contentions made in the claim petition by the respondent herein by way of filing a written statement. In the said written statement, the petitioner, herein, had denied the allegation of commission of torture upon the respondent. However, it is seen that the solemnization of the marriage by him with the respondent, herein, as well as the paternity of the child born out of said wedlock was not denied. The petitioner herein had projected that he was a casual labourer and was earning an amount of Rs.3,000/- per month. The learned Family Court upon considering the evidences coming on record, proceeded vide judgment dated 16.08.2014 to direct for payment of maintenance of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand) only, per month to the respondent, herein, by the petitioner with effect from the date of the order. Page No.# 3/7 Being aggrieved, the petitioner has instituted the present revision proceeding. 3. I have considered the materials coming on record, including the evidences adduced in the matter by the parties. 4. The learned Trial Court, on appreciation of the evidences coming on record, had drawn a conclusion to the effect that the respondent, herein, was staying away from her matrimonial house on account of justifiable reasons and that the petitioner herein, being an able-bodied man, has the wherewithal to maintain himself and his legally wedded wife. The learned Trial Court in the matter had drawn the following conclusions- “On the other hand, the opposite party stated that after two/three years of their marriage, the petitioner quarreled with him on some small issues and left his house. He stated that prior to that also, the petitioner went to her parent's house and filed a maintenance case against him and later on, they compromised the case and he had taken back the petitioner to his house, but after three months, she again went away to her mother's house and filed a case against him and he was arrested by the police for which he had to detain in the jail for about 1 (one) month 10 (ten) days and thereafter, the petitioner filed the instant case against him. He stated that he is a daily labourer. He denied a suggestion that he drives car on daily basis. PW2 Smt. Usha Baruah is 'the mother of the opposite party also corroborated the evidence of the DW1. It is evident from the pleadings as well as evidence adduced by both Page No.# 4/7 sides that the marriage between the petitioner and the opposite party was solemnized as per Hindu rites and rituals and they lived and cohabited as husband and wife and one male child was born out of their wedlock. It is also an undisputed fact that the petitioner is now living apart from the opposite party in her parental house, and she has got no independent source of income. On the other hand, it is sufficiently established that the opposite party/husband is an able bodied person and he has income to maintain himself and his legally married wife. The object of the provision of section 125 Cr.P.C. has been well explained by the Apex Court in the case of Sabita Ben -vs- State reported in (2005) Crl. L.J. 2141 stating that the section 125 is enacted for social justice and specially to protect women and children as also old and infirm poor parents within the Constitutional Sweep of Article 15 (3) reinforced by Article 39 of the Constitution. The provision gives effect to the natural and fundamental duty of a man to maintain his wife, children and parents so long they are unable to maintain themselves. The essence of section 125 Cr.P.C. is to grant maintenance and not refusal of the same. The object of the proceeding is not to punish a person for neglect to maintain who is bound to maintain. The section provides only a speedy remedy by a summery procedure to enforce liability in order to avoid vagrancy. The provision should be liberally construed as the primary object is to ensure social justice and to prevent vagrancy by compelling those who can support those who are unable to support themselves. Page No.# 5/7 In the present case, on perusal of the deposition of PW1 i.e. the petitioner, I find that she clearly stated that the opposite party does not want to bring her back to his house. Under such circumstances, while the opposite party is not ready to take back the petitioner in the matrimonial home and where the petitioner has no independent source of income and she is living away from her matrimonial home, it is the obligation of the husband to pay maintenance to her survival and livelihood. In the case in hand, it appears that the petitioner asserted that the opposite party neglected her to maintain being a married wife and the opposite party has not stated in his evidence that he has provided any maintenance to his wife. So he is legally bound to maintain his wife/petitioner, but he failed. These acts and conducts of the opposite party towards the petitioner amounts to neglect and refusal on his part in maintaining the petitioner. In view of the above discussion and the reasons stated above, I have come to the conclusion that the opposite party, being the legally married husband of the petitioner has failed to discharge his liability and has neglected the petitioner in providing maintenance. So, the point No. 1 is decided into affirmative and in favour of the petitioner. Point No. 2: 8. The acts and conducts of the opposite party, as discussed above, clearly depicts that he has neglected and refused to maintain the petitioner whom he legally married, but pushed her into a life of Page No.# 6/7 uncertainty. Moreover, the object of the provision of the section 125 Cr.P.C. is to prevent vagrancy of destitute women, so that they may not become victim of the circumstances. She should not be denied adequate maintenance by her husband and it is a social as well as ethical obligation on the part of the husband to look after his family. As regard the income of the opposite party, the petitioner has stated that he is a businessman and on the other hand, the opposite party has stated that he works as a casual labour and he is earning a sum of Rs. 3,000/- p.m. out of daily wages/labour. So, I am of the view that he is capable of giving maintenance to the petitioner, because it is not the case of the opposite party that he is incapable of earning nor it is his case that he is incapacitated to earn because of his physical disability etc. In view of the above discussions and the reasons stated, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to get maintenance from the opposite party. In these facts and circumstances, the Point No. 2, is also decided into affirmatives and in favour of the petitioner.” 5. This Court has perused the conclusions drawn by the learned Trial Court and finds that the same has been so drawn based on a due and proper examination of the evidences coming on record and no infirmity is found therein. The maintenance amount, as awarded by the learned Family Court, to the respondent, herein, is found to be at a lower stage. 6. Accordingly, for the reasons noted hereinabove, the judgment dated 16.08.2014 would not mandate any interference. The petitioner is now duty bound to pay the maintenance amount awarded by the learned Family Court. 7. The matter being pending before this Court since the year 2014, it is Page No.# 7/7 provided that, if so advised, it would be open for the respondent herein to file appropriate application invoking the provisions of Section 127 CrPC, praying for enhancement of the awarded amount of maintenance by the learned Family Court vide the judgment dated 16.08.2014. 8. With the above observations and directions, the present criminal revision petition stands dismissed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant