Bichitra Dutta vs Bibha Dutta
2022 Latest Caselaw 2897 Gua

                                                                       Page No.# 1/2

GAHC010148542018




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

                                Case No. : Crl.Rev.P./243/2018

             BICHITRA DUTTA
             S/O- LATE GOLAP DUTTA, R/O- DHAPKATA MILANPUR, P.O- R R
             LABORATORY, P.S- PULIBAR, DIST- JORHAT



             VERSUS

             BIBHA DUTTA
             W/O- SRI BICHITRA DUTTA, R/O- KAMALABARI CHARIALI, P.O-
             KAMALABARI, P.S- MAJULI, DIST- MAJULI



Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR. H A SARKAR

Advocate for the Respondent :

BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY Order

10.08.2022

None appears for the petitioner on call.

This is an application under Section 401 read with Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 assailing order dated 28.05.2018 passed by learned Sub-

Page No.# 2/2

Divisional Judicial Magistrate (M), Majuli in Misc Case No. 23(M)/2017. The said Misc Case No. 23 (M)/2017 was filed under Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 by the respondent wife.

The brief fact narrated in the said case is that the present petitioner deserted his wife (the present respondent) and refused to maintain her and accordingly she filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., which was registered as Misc Case No. 3/2000 and the learned trial court below granted monthly maintenance allowance of Rs. 700/- to the respondent wife. Subsequently, the respondent wife filed the connected application in the year 2017 under Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying for enhancement of monthly maintenance allowance.

The learned trial court after taking evidence came to a conclusion that the present petitioner (husband of the present respondent) is a clerk in Public Work Department and he draws a salary of Rs. 23,000/-. Considering the present cost of living, standard of life, said petition was allowed by the impugned order enhancing the maintenance allowance to Rs. 2,500/-.

I have perused the judgment. I find no infirmity in it inasmuch as it was an admitted position that the petitioner was a regular employee of Public Work Department and his net salary was Rs. 23,000/-.

In that view of the matter, this petition deserved to be dismissed and accordingly the same is dismissed.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant