Gauhati High Court
Mrinal Chandra Bhuyan vs Anjali Choudhury Bhuyan on 27 January, 2023
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010114062018
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Crl.Rev.P./186/2018
MRINAL CHANDRA BHUYAN
SON OF LATE PASUPATI BHUYAN, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE DABORSUPA,
SARTHEBARI, DISTRICT- BARPETA, ASSAM, PIN- 781307
VERSUS
ANJALI CHOUDHURY BHUYAN
WIFE OF SRI MRINAL CHANDRA BHUYAN, RESIDENT OF LAKHINAGAR,
ZOO ROAD, HOUSE NO. 18, P.O. AND P.S. DISPUR, GUWAHATI-05,
DISTRICT- KAMRUP, ASSAM.
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S K GOSWAMI
Advocate for the Respondent : MR. K D CHETRI
:: PRESENT ::
HON'BLEMR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTISAIKIA
For the Petitioner : Mr. S. K. Goswami,
Advocate.
For the Respondent : Mr. K. D. Chetri,
Advocate.
Date of Hearing : 24.01.2023.
Date of Judgment : 27.01.2023.
Page No.# 2/4
JUDGMENT AND ORDER (CAV)
Heard Mr. S. K. Goswami, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner. Also heard Mr. K.D. Chetri, the learned counsel representing
the respondent.
2. This is an application under Section 397 and 401 of the Criminal
Procedure Code whereby the judgment and order dated 02.04.2018
passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court No.1 at Guwahati in
F.C. Case No.457/2016 is put to challenge.
3. The case of the petitioner in a nutshell is like this-the petitioner is
about 64 years now. He retired from Food Corporation of India on
28.02.2014 and he gets a pension of Rs.1,247/- per month.
4. The petitioner has three sons and all of them are busy in their own
professions.
5. The wife of the petitioner died. Thereafter, the petitioner had an
agreement with the respondent that she would look after his family and
both of them would live together.
6. The petitioner has been suffering from many ailments. He also had a
cerebral stroke. The respondent found it difficult to properly take care of
the problems of the petitioner. Ultimately, she left the house of the
petitioner.
7. She filed a complaint before police praying for recovery of her
Streedhan. In the meantime, she also opened a shop at Guwahati and
thereafter, she filed a case under Section 125 of the CrPC against the
Page No.# 3/4
petitioner in the Family Court No.1 at Guwahati. The case is numbered as
FC (Crl) Case No. 457/2016. The petitioner contested this case. Initially,
the Family Court passed an order, directing the petitioner to pay monthly
maintenance of Rs.800/-. After a full hearing, ultimately, the Family Court
directed the petitioner to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.2,500/- to the
respondent.
8. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner filed this
revision petition. The primary ground taken by the petitioner is that he
gets a monthly pension of Rs.1,247/- only and, therefore, he is not able to
pay Rs.2,500/- per month to the respondent.
9. I have considered the submissions made bythe learned counsels of
both sides.
10. There is evidence in this case that on 13.11.2009, the petitioner
married the respondent in a social function and after about 6 months of
marriage, the petitioner started to physically harass the respondent. The
petitioner owns a Swift Dzire car also.
11. The provision of law as contained in Section 125 of the CrPC, is
meant to protect women, children and parents who are unable to
maintain themselves. This is a social legislation meant to prevent
vagrancy. In these days, Rs.2,500/- is not an enormous amount. A
husband is bound to maintain his wife. In that case, all his excuses is a
nullity.
12. The power under Section 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, is a supervisory power of the High Court. I do not find anything
wrong in the order of the Principal Judge, Family Court No.1, Guwahati.
Page No.# 4/4
The court below has rightly appreciated the evidence and arrived at a
correct finding.
13. For the aforesaid reasons, I find this revision petition to be devoid of
merit and hence dismissed accordingly.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
