Case No. : Crl.Rev.P./263/2017 vs Smt. Amrita Debnath And Anr
2021 Latest Caselaw 2860 Gua

                                                                                Page No.# 1/2

GAHC010032912017




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

                               Case No. : Crl.Rev.P./263/2017
           RAJESH BARMAN
           S/O. LT. MANORANJAN BARMAN, R/O. ANANDA PALLY, LUMDING, P.O. and
           P.S. LUMDING, DIST. HOJAI, ASSAM, PIN-782447.

           VERSUS

           SMT. AMRITA DEBNATH and ANR.
           W/O. SRI RAJESH BARMAN, D/O. JAGANNATH BARMAN, R/O.
           JHULANPHOOL ROAD, LUMDING, P.O. and P.S. LUMDING, DIST. HOJAI,
           ASSAM, PIN-782447.

           2:THE STATE OF ASSA

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.M CHETIA
Advocate for the Respondent :

                                   BEFORE
                       HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NANI TAGIA

                                         ORDER

Date : 12-11-2021

Heard Mr. M. Chetia, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. A. I. Uddin, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1, and Mr. Bidyut Sarma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 2.

This Criminal Revision Petition u/s. 401 read with Section 397 of the Cr.P.C., 1973, is preferred against the judgment, dated 11.08.2015, passed by the learned SDJM, Hojai, Nagaon, in M.R. Case No. 338/2013, whereby the petitioner has been directed to pay a sum of Rs. 8,000/- p.m. as maintenance amount to the respondent No. 1, herein.

Page No.# 2/2

Mr. Chetia, learned counsel, submits that at the time of passing of the impugned judgment, dated 11.08.2015, the petitioner who was aged about 41 years, was working as an Assistant Professor in a provincialized College in the Hindi Department, and he was drawing a gross salary of Rs. 54,000/- p.m..

Mr. Chetia, learned counsel, further submits that since the filing of the petition, the petitioner is not keeping contact with him and by this time, he may have been promoted to the next higher post.

Mr. Uddin, learned counsel for respondent No. 1, on the other hand, submits that considering the amount of salary, the petitioner may be drawing at the moment; a maintenance allowance of Rs. 8,000/- p.m. directed to be paid by the petitioner to the respondent No. 1, herein, is very reasonable.

Upon considering the fact that the petitioner, at the time of passing of the impugned judgment, was drawing a monthly gross salary of Rs. 54,000/- p.m., and also taking into consideration the fact that the judgment was passed by the Court of learned SDJM, Hojai, Nagaon, as far back as in the year 2015; I find the direction given by the Court of learned SDJM, Hojai, Nagaon, to the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 8,000/- p.m. to the respondent No. 1, as maintenance amount, to be a reasonable one, requiring no interference by this Court.

In view of the above, the instant criminal revision petition stands dismissed.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant