Bijan Goswami vs Smti Nabanita Goswami
2021 Latest Caselaw 188 Gua

                                                                                            Page No.# 1/2

GAHC010022162017




                                THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
   (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                                    Case No. : Crl.Rev.P./146/2017

              BIJAN GOSWAMI
              S/O LT. BIPUL CH. GOSWAMI R/O C/O DIPANKAR SAIKIA UDAYACHAL
              PATH, HILL SIDE, NEAR BISHNU MANDIR, CHRITIANBASTI, GUWAHATI-5,
              DIST. KAMRUP M, ASSAM

              VERSUS

              SMTI NABANITA GOSWAMI
              D/O SRI PRAJESH RANJAN BHATTACHARJEE W/O BIJAN GOSWAMI R/O
              SUBHASH NAGAR NETAJI ROAD P.S. SILCHAR DIST. CACHAR, SILCHAR-4,
              ASSAM

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.A KHANIKAR
Advocate for the Respondent : MR.S P CHOUDHURY


                                               BEFORE
                   HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE RUMI KUMARI PHUKAN

                                            :: O R D E R ::

21-01-2021

Heard Mr. A Khanikar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. SP Choudhury, learned counsel for the respondent.

The petitioner herein preferred this revision petition against the judgment and order dated 03.12.2014 in FC(Crl.) 181(A)/2013 wherein the learned trial court has directed the petitioner to pay Rs.12,000/- per month as maintenance towards his wife/respondent.

In the said case the respondent/wife admitted that the petitioner used to pay Rs.6,000/- which is not enough towards maintenance and the learned court accordingly at the conclusion of the proceeding directed the petitioner to pay Rs.12,000/- per month. The said order was passed ex-parte.

Page No.# 2/2

Today Mr. Khanikar has fairly submitted that he is continuously paying the maintenance to his wife @ Rs.6,000/- per month on earlier occasion and thereafter in terms of the order passed by this Court on 12.05.2017 he continued to pay Rs.8,000/- per month without disputing any sort of matter and ready to pay Rs.8000/- per month without disputing other matter.

Mr. Choudhury has however submitted that said maintenance is at lower side and it will be enough if he pay Rs.10,000/- per month. After deliberation, both the parties agreed that an amount of Rs.9,000/- can be paid towards the maintenance, instead of Rs.10,000/-. The petitioner herein contends that the child is residing with him and he is suffering some sort of ailment and he is unable to pay such amount of Rs.12,000/- as he is doing job in a private company.

Having heard the submission of the learned counsel for both the parties and considering the entirety of the matter, this petition stands disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to pay Rs.9,000/- per month to the petitioner from the month of February, 2021 and also directed to clear the arrear, if any, before the trial court. As it appears that there is a gap period from the date of order of 03.12.2014 till preferring the petition before this Court in the year 2017. The petitioner is directed to pay the maintenance for the gap period also @ Rs.8000/- per month.

Return the LCR.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant