Page No.# 1/16 GAHC010005962013 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Rev.P./128/2013 KIRON KALITA S/O SRI SASHI KALITA R/O VILL- MILANPUR, P.O. and P.S. CHAYYGAON, DIST. KAMRUP R, ASSAM, VERSUS SMTI NIZARA KALITA W/O SRI KIRON KALITA D/O LT. PRAMOD KALITA R/O VILL- KHARBHANGA, P.O. KUKURMARA, P.S. CHAYYGAON, DIST. KAMRUP R, ASSAM, Advocate for the Petitioner : MRG P BHOWMIK, MS.J PURKAYASTHA Advocate for the Respondent : MR.A S CHOUDHURY, MS. S KANUNGOE, AMICUS CURIAE,MR. N J GOGOI, AMICUS CURIAE,MS.R LAHKAR Page No.# 2/16 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR ORDER Date : 16.09.2025 Heard Mr. N. J. Gogoi, learned Amicus Curiae, appearing for the petitioner and Ms. S. Kanungoe, learned Amicus Curiae, appearing for the opposite party. 2. The present criminal revision petition has been instituted by the petitioner assailing the Judgment and Order dated 22.01.2013, passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court- II, Kamrup, Guwahati, granting a maintenance of Rs.4000/-(Rupees Four Thousand) to the petitioner, herein, and her 2 minor children w.e.f. the date of the order. 3. The facts in brief in adjudication for issue arising in the present proceedings is noticed as under. The respondent, herein, had instituted proceedings before the Family Court, Guwahati, which was registered as F.C.(Crl.)548/2009. In the said proceedings, it was projected, that the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent, herein, was solemnized on 24th aghan(Assamese calendar month), in the year 2005, according to Hindu Rites and Customs. During the conjugal life of the parties, herein, 2(two) male children were born to them. It was projected, therein, that after lapse of some period of time, from date of the solemnization of the marriage, the petitioner, herein, started demanding material objects from the respondent, herein, which she was to procure from her family members. As the respondent, herein, failed to fulfill the demand for dowry, the opposite party is as alleged to have tortured her. Such torture was also Page No.# 3/16 projected to have been committed upon the respondent, herein, during the time when she was pregnant. It was further projected in the said proceedings that in addition to the petitioner, herein, his parents and his sister-in-law also used to torture the respondent and also had not provided her food on many days. It is projected that on account of the said torture, which was due to non-fulfillment of dowry, the respondent being unable to bear the same, had left for her parental home and had informed about the torture committed upon her by her in-laws, to her family members. It is projected that steps were taken by the family members of the respondent, herein, to reconcile the petitioner along with the respondent, however, on account of the defiance shown by the petitioner, herein, such reconciliation had not occasioned. The respondent in the said proceeding had also alleged that the said torture as committed upon her by the petitioner, was also on account of the objection raised by her with regard to the relationship maintained by the petitioner with his sister-in-law and that she had seen both of them in compromising position, frequently. The respondent had claimed for maintenance from the petitioner, herein, and in this connection, she had projected that the petitioner is a businessman, running a cloth shop and had a monthly income of Rs.18,000/-(Rupees Eighteen Thousand), besides having landed properties. Accordingly, the respondent had claimed Rs.6000/-(Rupees Six Thousand) as maintenance for herself and for her 2(two) minor children. The opposite party/petitioner, herein, had contested the same proceedings by way of filing his written statement and therein, had projected that he had no income to maintain the respondent and even to maintain himself, the ownership of the cloth shop as alleged by the Page No.# 4/16 respondent, herein, was denied by the petitioner. He further alleged that the respondent, herein, had illicit relationship with one local youth before the marriage and the same continued after the marriage also. The petitioner, herein, further projected that it is on account of the said illicit relationship maintained by the respondent that she had left his house. The learned Family Court, on consideration of the evidences coming on record of the parties to the proceeding, vide the Judgment and Order dated 22.01.2013, directed the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.2000/- (Rupees Two Thousand)per month to the respondent and an amount of Rs.1000/- (Rupees One Thousand) per month, to each of the two children, totaling Rs.4000/-(Rupees Four Thousand)only from the date of the order, as the maintenance. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has instituted the present revision petition. 4. Mr. N. J. Gogoi, learned Amicus Curiae, appearing for the petitioner, by referring to the deposition of the parties before the Family Court, has submitted that the same would bring to the forefront, the fact that the respondent had willfully abandoned her matrimonial home and had stayed with her parents. He submits that the torture as alleged by the respondent to have been committed upon her by the petitioner has not been established by the evidence brought on record by the respondent, herein, before the Family Court. He further submits that the evidences adduced in the matter on his behalf would go to reveal that he is only an employee working in a cloth shop, which is owned by his brother and had an income of Rs.1500/- to Rs.2000/- per month, and accordingly it is not feasible for him to meet the expenditure of his wife and his children, more so when they are living separately without any reasonable cause. Accordingly, he submits that the Judgment and Order dated 22.01.2013, Page No.# 5/16 passed by the Family Court, having been so passed without a proper appreciation of the evidences coming on record would call for an interference from this Court. 5. Per Contra, Ms. S. Kanungoe, learned Amicus Curiae, appearing for the respondent by referring to the depositions of the respondent, herein, before the Family Court, has submitted that the same would bring to the forefront, the torture committed upon the respondent by the petitioner, herein. She submits that the respondent was forced only on account of the torture committed upon her by the petitioner and his family members, to proceed to her parental home, fearing that she would be killed and also harm would be caused to her minor children. She further submits that the evidences coming on record, would go to reveal that the petitioner, herein, maintained an illicit relationship with his sister-in-law. She submits that the deposition as made by the petitioner as well as the other witnesses adduced by him in the proceedings were dislodged by their cross-examination done by the respondent, herein. Accordingly, she submits that the petitioner, being a man with means, the amount of maintenance as determined by the learned Family Court vide the impugned Judgment would not mandate an interference from this Court. With regard to the allegation leveled by the petitioner against the respondent of she having maintained illicit relationship with other youths, she submits that the same was not established before the learned Family Court and no names of any such persons were given and if so given, the same was vague without any materials particulars. 6. Ms. S. Kanungoe, has further submitted that the materials brought on record would go to reveal that the petitioner, herein, had not disputed the solemnization of his marriage with the respondent, herein, as well as the paternity of the children born in pursuance to such marriage to them. Page No.# 6/16 7. In the above premises she submits that the amount as determined by the learned Family Court being at a lower stage, the same would not mandate any interference from this Court. 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials available on record. 9. The facts noticed, hereinabove, are not in dispute. The petitioner, herein, has not disputed the solemnization of his marriage with the respondent, further he has not disputed the paternity of the 2(two) children born out of such marriage between him and the respondent, herein. The respondent, herein, had instituted proceedings before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court II, for a direction upon the petitioner, herein, for providing maintenance to her and her 2(two) minor sons. In support of her case, the respondent, herein, had examine herself and 2 other witnesses. The evidences as adduced on behalf of the parties would mandate to be noticed; 10. The respondent examined herself as PW-1 in the matter. In her deposition, the respondent, herein, after bringing on record the factum of solemnization of her marriage with the petitioner, herein, had deposed that after about 1 ½ years from the date of her marriage, the petitioner had started to torture her and he used to also assault her. She further deposed that the petitioner had an illicit relationship with his elder brother’s wife. She also deposed that at the time of her second pregnancy she was tortured and after 3(three) months of the birth of her second son, the petitioner had assaulted her and drove her out of his house, along with her 2(two) sons and thereafter she had taken shelter at her parental home. She deposed that the petitioner had never gone to bring her back and had refused to maintain her and their children and that she Page No.# 7/16 was an unemployed. She deposed that she used to sometime work as a labour and her brother sometime used to help her financially. The respondent, herein, deposed that the petitioner earned around Rs.12,000/- Rs.15,000/-per month and claimed for a maintenance @ of Rs.6000/- (Rupees Six Thousand) per month for her and her 2(two) sons. During her cross-examination she denied the suggestion of never being assaulted by the petitioner and also of not being driven out of his house. She reiterated that the petitioner had an extramarital affair with his sister- in-law and that he is staying with his sister-in-law. She denied the suggestion of having assaulted the petitioner, herein. She also denied the suggestion that the petitioner’s income through the shop is not good. 11. PW2 is the mother of the respondent. After deposing about the factum of solemnization of the marriage of the respondent with the petitioner, deposed that disputes arose between respondent, herein, and her husband and she used to come to their house and they used to reconcile them. She deposed that around 3 years back, the respondent was compelled to take shelter in her paternal house with her 2 sons and that the opposite party never come to take them back. It was also deposed by PW2 that she had send her relatives to request the opposite party to bring back the respondent to his house and she had also come to request the petitioner to take back the respondent, however, it was further deposed that the petitioner had refused to accept the respondent as his wife. PW2 further also deposed that the petitioner had also told his relatives that he would start a family life with his sister-in-law, but not with the respondent, herein. It was further deposed by the PW2 that the petitioner had neglected to maintain the respondent and her sons. She further deposed that she was an unemployed and her sons used to sell firewood and would help the respondent, herein, sometimes. She deposed Page No.# 8/16 that the petitioner had a shop and that the petitioner should pay maintenance to the respondent. She further deposed that the petitioner had assaulted the respondent even by use of firewood and had driven her out of his house. During cross-examination she deposed that the petitioner had illicit relationship with his sister-in-law. She denied the suggestion that the respondent had a bad character. 12. PW-3, is a villager residing in the village of the mother of the respondent. He deposed that he came to learn from the respondent, of the torture committed upon her by the petitioner. He also deposed that respondent after 4 years of a marriage was compelled to take shelter in her parent’s house. During his cross-examination PW-3 deposed that he had seen the shop of the petitioner. He further deposed that he never heard of the respondent having an affair with another man. 13. The petitioner, herein, examined himself as DW-2 and had adduced the evidence of 3(three) other Defence Witnesses. The petitioner as DW-2 deposed that the respondent, herein, used to quarrel with him on every aspect and she suspected him with his sister-in-law and many a time he had to take refuge in his shop where he worked. He deposed that the shop belongs to his brother and he works, therein. He deposed that about 2 ½ years ago while he was at his shop for 3 days due to quarrel with the petitioner and on returning from his shop he found the respondent quarrelling with his father and mother and all family members. He having interfered into the matter, the respondent had slapped him. He further deposed that he had caught her hand but his father had stopped him and he had returned to his shop. He deposed that thereafter the respondent Page No.# 9/16 went away to her parental house along with his 2 children, gold ornaments, clothes etc., and instituted the present proceedings before the Family Court. He deposed that the respondent is a woman of bad character and she used to loiter with any person she likes. He also deposed that he had tolerated the act on the part of the respondent for the sake of the children but she had crossed the limit. He further deposed that due to the quarrelsome behaviour on the part of the respondent, she always destroyed the atmosphere in his house. He deposed that the respondent had developed relationship with one Dip Thakukia, who had wanted to take her after filing of the case before the Family Court. The DW-2 deposed that he worked in a cloth shop of his brother and had an income of Rs.1500/--2000/- per month. During his cross-examination he reiterated that the respondent had relationship with other persons including Dip Thakuria. He also reiterated the quarrelsome behaviour of the respondent, herein, for which he had to stay in his shop for several days. He denied the suggestion that his family members quarrelled and assaulted the respondent, herein. He also denied the fact that he owned a cloth shop and had a good income of Rs.15,000/- per month. 14. DW-1, deposed that her daughter was married by the brother of the opposite party. She deposed that the respondent, herein, is a woman of bad character and used to loiter with other man always in absence of the petitioner. She deposed that for the said reason there was quarrel between the petitioner and the respondent and ultimately she began to reside in her parental house. During her cross-examination she deposed that she did not know the person with whom the respondent used to loiter but had seen her while Page No.# 10/16 roaming with other man. 15. DW-3, is the grandfather of the petitioner and he deposed that he resided near the house of the petitioner and the respondent is a woman of a bad character and used to loiter outside after the birth of child in absence of opposite party, as he used to remain in his duty. He also deposed that he heard that the respondent had a relationship with a boy, however, denied knowledge about the reason of the quarrel between the parties. He also deposed that he did not see with whom the respondent had roamed around but had heard that the respondent had a relation with a boy.DW3, however denied knowledge about the reason of the quarrel between the parties. He also deposed that he did not see the petitioner roaming around. 16. DW4 is the sister-in-law of the petitioner and she deposed that she did not know the reason as to why the parties had separated. She deposed that she had heard that the respondent used to loiter outside the house and that the respondent had completely separated from them. She also deposed that she was not in talking term with the respondent. 17. The evidences coming on record would go to highlight that the respondent, herein, was forced to move to her maternal home on account of the torture she was subjected to by the petitioner, herein. This Court finds that the evidences adduced by and behalf of the respondent, herein, established the torture she was subjected to by the petitioner, herein. Accordingly this Court is of the considered view that the respondent, herein, had not wilfully left her matrimonial home and was not staying in her maternal home out of her own wish but she was forced by the circumstances she faced in her matrimonial home which lead her to move out therefrom. Page No.# 11/16 18. Having drawn the above conclusions, the respondent, herein, having not been demonstrate to have re-married, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner, herein, must necessarily provided for the maintenance of his legally married wife and his children i.e. the respondent, herein, and her children. 19. The petitioner, herein, during the proceedings, the learned Trial Court had tried to level allegation against the respondent, herein, and had projected that the respondent was living in adultery. This Court on appreciation of the evidences coming on record finds that the allegation levelled against the respondent by the petitioner are vague and are not supported by any materials particulars. The evidences does not bring to the forefront that the respondent, herein, is woman of bad character and is habitually loitering around with person she likes. In absence of concrete evidence being brought on record in this connection, the said allegation levelled by the petitioner, herein, against the respondent cannot be held to have been established. This Court finds that the learned Family Court in the Judgment and Order dated 22.01.2013 in this connection had drawn the following conclusions. “From the above discussions, it is found that according to the opposite party the petitioner is a woman of bad character and she is loitering with other person in his absence. But witnesses of the opposite party could not say with whom the petitioner is loitering. The facts of the opposite party make it clear that he has suspected the petitioner on her character. But the opposite party has failed to prove by adducing cogent and reliable evidence Page No.# 12/16 that she has illicit relation with other person. Mere statements that the petitioner is a woman of bad character is not sufficient to determine the character of the petitioner. Rather by suspecting the character of the petitioner the opposite party tortured the petitioner mentally. On the other hand, the petitioner both in her petition and in her deposition has stated that the opposite party has illicit relationship with his sister-in-law (DW4) and she found both the petitioner and sister-in- law in most compromising position. Due to that relationship, the opposite party tortured the petitioner both physically and mentally and ultimately drove her out from his house. PW2 the mother of the petitioner in her deposition has stated that she sent some relatives to the opposite party requesting him to accept the petitioner but the opposite party refused to accept the petitioner by saying that he would start his family life with his sister-in-law not with the petitioner. PW3, which is an independent witness, has also stated that due to the torture, the petitioner had to leave her matrimonial house. Though the petitioner has also failed to adduce any cogent evidence regarding the illicit relationship in between the opposite party and his sister-in-law (DW4), but she has been able to prove the torture of the opposite party. Further the suspicion of the character of the petitioner is itself mental torture on the part of the petitioner by the opposite party. More so DW4, who is the sister-in-law of the opposite party, does not know as Page No.# 13/16 to why the petitioner is living separately. She herself has stated that she had no talking term with the petitioner but contrary to it the opposite party has stated that the petitioner made quarrel with his parents and other family members for which he had to stay in his shop for 3 days and even on his day of return he found the petitioner was quarrelling with his parents and all other family members and on that day she left her matrimonial house. The deposition of the opposite party and his witnesses show that the opposite party is concealing some material facts. The foregoing discussion has transpired that both the parties are living separately and the petitioner had to live separately due to torture of the opposite party both physical and mental. So the ground of living separately is a just and reasonable ground on the part of the petitioner.” 20. This Court on perusal of the said conclusions finds the same to be so based on a due and proper appreciation of the evidences coming on record and accordingly, holds that the same does not suffer from any infirmity. The learned Family Court on reaching the said conclusion had with regard to the source of income and as well as the maintenance required to be provided by him to the respondent, herein had drawn the following conclusion. “8. According to the petitioner the opposite party is a businessman and is running one cloth shop. He has some landed properties also. The opposite party has denied it. According to the opposite party, he is working in a cloth shop Page No.# 14/16 of his brother. Admittedly the petitioner has no source of income. The petitioner in her petition and deposition have clearly stated that the opposite party does not maintain either the petitioner or her children. The evidence of the opposite party has also make it clear that he has not maintained either the petitioner or her children. Hence this point is decided in favour of the petitioner. 9. Admittedly the petitioner is the legally married wife of the opposite party and he is the father of the children of the petitioner. 10. Therefore in view of the decision of point No.1 and 2, the petitioner and her two sons are entitled to get maintenance from the opposite party. Regarding quantum, the opposite party has denied that he is running a cloth shop but in his deposition he has mentioning it as his shop. He even stated that due to the quarrel with to the petitioner he stayed in his shop for 3 days. Therefore in my view, an amount of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand) p.m. to the petitioner and an amount of Rs.1,000/- p.m. to each child will be reasonable amount of maintenance.” 21. This Court finds from the materials available on record that the conclusion drawn by the learned Family Court on the issue, to be not erroneous. 22. The solemnization of the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent, herein, having been not disputed by the petitioner and further the paternity of the children born out of such wedlock also not being disputed by the petitioner, herein, this Court holds Page No.# 15/16 that the in the facts and circumstances of the matter, the petitioner is duty bound to maintain his legally wedded wife and his children. This Court also finds that the amount of maintenance as determined by the learned Family Court cannot be held to have been determined in a arbitrary manner. Further, the amount of the maintenance is also found to have been determined at a lower stage. Accordingly, the maintenance as awarded by the learned Family Court to the respondent, herein, and her children, is found by this Court to be reasonable and not excessive. 23. In view of the above conclusion reached in the matter by this Court and this Court having upheld the conclusions reached in the matter by the learned Trial Court, this Court finds that the maintenance awarded by the learned Trial Court would not mandate any interference from this Court. 24. At this stage it is to be noticed that the learned Amicus Curiae, appearing for the respondent had made a submission that the amount as determined by the learned Trial Court being so determined in the year 2013, the same is insufficient for the maintenance for the respondent and her children and enhancement thereof is called for. This Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction would not be called upon to enhance the amount of maintenance as determined by the learned Trial Court and it would be permissible for the respondent, herein, to file appropriate application in this connection before the appropriate forum seeking enhancement of the maintenance amount. 25. In view of the above conclusions, the present revision petition Page No.# 16/16 is held to be devoid of any merit and the same stands dismissed. 26. Send down the records of the case to the Trial Court along with a copy of this order for information and necessary action. Registry to also forward a copy of this order to both the petitioner and the respondent. 27. Before parting with the records of the case, this Court records its appreciation to the able assistance provided by Mr. N. J. Gogoi, Advocate and Ms. S. Kanungoe, Advocate, as Amicus Curiae in the matter, which had facilitated disposal of the present matter. JUDGE Comparing Assistant