Gauhati High Court
Rabindra Dutta vs The State Of Assam And Anr on 4 March, 2025
Page No.# 1/5
GAHC010038402017
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Crl.Pet./725/2017
RABINDRA DUTTA
S/O- LATE CHARULAL DUTTA, R/O- APURBA RESIDENCY, ANDU RABHA
PATH, P.O- UDALBAKRA, P.S- DISPUR, DIST- KAMRUPM, ASSAM
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM and ANR.
2:SAMPA KUNDU DUTTA
D/O- KRISHNA LAL KUNDU
R/O- NETAJI PATH
HOUSE NO. 15/A
P.O- UDALBAKRA
P.S- DISPUR
PIN- 781006
DIST- KAMRUPM
ASSA
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.S C BISWAS, N HASAN,MR A HUSSAIN,MR F HAQUE,MR.
B K SEN,MS.K L R YANTHAN
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR.P K R CHOUDHURY(R-2),MS.P UPAMANYU(R-
2),MRG DEKA(R-2)
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI
Page No.# 2/5
04.03.2025
Heard Mr. B.K. Sen, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P.K.R.
Choudhury, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 and Ms. S.H. Bora, learned
Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State respondents.
2. By way of this petition under Section 482 of CrPC, 1973, the petitioner is
assailing the impugned Order dated 20.07.2017 passed by the learned Principal
Judge, Family Court, Kamrup (M) in Guwahati in F.C (Crl.) No. 239/2016,
whereby the petitioner was directed to pay monthly maintenance of Rs. 2000/-
to the respondent as interim maintenance allowance.
3. The facts of the case is that the respondent No. 2 by an application under
Section 125 CrPC prayed before the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court for
grant of monthly maintenance on the ground interalia that the marriage of the
respondent No. 2 was solemnized on 20.05.2015 as per Hindu Rites and Rituals
at Kamakhya Temple, Guwahati.
4. It is the further case of the respondent No. 2 that the parties started their
conjugal life at her matrimonial house situated at Odalbakra, Guwahati and
thereafter, she was subjected to both mental and physical torture on demand of
dowry by her husband and family members of the petitioner. It is in this
background that the application for grant of maintenance was filed, when
interim maintenance allowance was granted. Assailing the said order, the
present petition is being filed.
5. Mr. B.K. Sen, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the grant of
interim compensation of Rs. 2000/- monthly is not supported by any assets or
Page No.# 3/5
liabilities statement and hence, the same is erroneous.
6. Per contra, Mr. P.K.R. Choudhury, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2
submits that the present criminal petition is liable to be dismissed as the learned
Family Court has not committed any palpable and manifest error in granting
interim compensation of Rs. 2000/-. He further submits that the present criminal
petition under Section 482 CrPC is not maintainable inasmuch as the same is
against the interim order passed under Section 125 CrPC proceedings.
In support of the aforesaid submission, he relies upon the decision of the
Apex Court in the case of Vijay Kumar Prasad Vs. State of Bihar & Others ,
reported in (2004) 5 SCC 196 at paragraph 14.
7. I have heard the submissions advanced by both the learned counsels
appearing for the contending parties and I have perused the materials available
on records. I have also considered the case law cited at the bar.
8. It appears that the present criminal petition is against the interim
compensation of Rs. 2000/- granted by the learned Family Court.
9. Apt to refer to the relevant portion of the impugned Order of the learned
Family Court-II, Kamrup, Guwahati dated 20.07.2017, which is reproduced
hereunder for ready reference:-
"F.C. (Crl.) Case No. 239/2016
20.07.2017
The instant petition is instituted by the petitioner Smt. Shampa Kundu u/s 125 Cr.p.c. against
the opposite party Sri Rabindra Dutta claiming maintenance allowance of Rs.10,000/- per
month for herself, alongwith a prayer for interim maintenance allowance of Rs.5,000/- per
month.
Heard both the parties on the prayer of petitioner for granting her interim maintenance
Page No.# 4/5
allowance.
The petitioner stated that due to the various tortures by the opposite party, she was
compelled to leave her matrimonial home and presently, she is staying at her parental home.
She is facing great financial hardship to maintain herself as she does not have any income
and as the opposite party has failed to give her any sort of maintenance allowance till date. It
is stated that the opposite party earns Rs.20,000/- per month.
The opposite party has not disputed his marriage with the petitioner. The opposite party
categorically stated that presently, he does not have any income as the clinic, where he used
to work, got closed. It is further stated that he is not liable to make any payment of
maintenance to the petitioner as he instituted a civil case against her seeking decree for
nullity as their marriage, till date has not been consummated due to the impotency of the
petitioner. It appears that the opposite party has not disputed the fact of petitioner's financial
dependence.
The petitioner admitted that her marriage has been consummated but she does not appear
to admit the fact of her impotence.
Perused the case record.
Perusal of the original petition being filed by petitioner reveals various facts being brought by
the petitioner in respect of torture being inflicted on her by the opposite party, which is
categorically denied by the opposite party in the written statement. It appears that the
opposite party has further brought the fact of non consummation of their marriage due to the
impotency of the petitioner.
It is pertinent to mention that the aforesaid disputed fact requires decision on merit after
getting due evidence from both the sides.
It is further pertinent to mention that though the opposite party, denied to have any income
but the materials on record nowhere suggest that the opposite party to be suffering from any
infirmities or any disease rather it suggest him to be a able bodied person, in result suggest
him having sufficient means, as per the observations of the Hon'ble Apex in its various
judgments.
Hence, in the meantime, having regard to the aforesaid admitted facts and the other relevant
factors into consideration, the opposite party is directed to pay Rs.2,000/- (two thousand)
monthly, as interim maintenance allowance, to the petitioner till the instant case is disposed
of, on merit, from the date of this order.
Fixed 08/08/2017 for evidence of the petitioner."
10. Reading of the aforesaid order, it is apparent that the learned Family Court
Page No.# 5/5
after considering the facts and circumstances of the case was pleased to direct
payment of Rs. 2000/- monthly as interim maintenance allowance to the
petitioner till the maintenance case is disposed of on merit from the date of the
aforesaid order.
11. The learned Family Court is entitled to grant interim maintenance under
law and as such, there appears no palpable and manifest error in the order of
the learned Family Court directing payment of interim maintenance allowance.
12. That being so, the criminal petition fails.
13. Accordingly, the present criminal petition stands dismissed. No cost.
14. It is needless to clarify that the learned Family Court shall dispose of the
maintenance case on merit expeditiously.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
