Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/6 vs Anima Debnath on 4 March, 2025
Page No.# 1/6
GAHC010197342018
2025:GAU-AS:2229
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Crl.Rev.P./403/2018
MITHUN DEBNATH AND 5 ORS.
S/O SRI MANIK DEBNATH, R/O DIGBOI ANANDAPARA, PO AND PS DIGBOI,
DIST. TINSUKIA, ASSAM, PIN-786171
2: CHUTAN DEBNATH @ DEBASHISH DEBNATH
S/O SRI MANIK DEBNATH
R/O DIGBOI ANANDAPARA
PO AND PS DIGBOI
DIST. TINSUKIA
ASSAM
PIN-786171
3: ANJU DEBNATH
W/O SRI MANIK DEBNATH
R/O DIGBOI ANANDAPARA
PO AND PS DIGBOI
DIST. TINSUKIA
ASSAM
PIN-786171
4: SOMA DEBNATH
W/O SRI CHUTAN DEBNATH @ DEBASHISH DEBNATH
R/O DIGBOI ANANDAPARA
PO AND PS DIGBOI
DIST. TINSUKIA
ASSAM
PIN-786171
5: MANIK DEBNATH
S/O LATE HARIMOHAN DEBNATH
R/O DIGBOI ANANDAPARA
PO AND PS DIGBOI
DIST. TINSUKIA
ASSAM
Page No.# 2/6
PIN-786171
6: SWAPAN DEBNATH
S/O LT. HARIMOHAN DEBNATH
R/O DIGBOI ANANDAPARA
PO AND PS DIGBOI
DIST. TINSUKIA
ASSAM
PIN-78617
VERSUS
ANIMA DEBNATH
W/O SRI MITHUN DEBNATH, D/O SRI NITYANANDA DEBNATH, R/O
TELIBATI, PO AND PS HOJAI, DIST. HOJAI, ASSAM, PIN-782435
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR D KALITA,
Advocate for the Respondent : MS. T SOM, MR. R DEV,MR H DAS,MS P LEKHARU,MR. P TELI
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI
04.03.2025
Heard Mr. D. Kalita, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. R.
Dev, learned counsel for the sole respondent.
2. By way of this criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with
Section 401 of CrPC, the petitioners is assailing the impugned Judgment dated
12.06.2018 passed by the learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge (FTC), Hojai,
Sankardev Nagar in Criminal Appeal No. 05/2015, whereby the learned
Additional District Judge (FTC) dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioners.
Page No.# 3/6
3. The facts of the case is that the respondent upon being tortured and
harassed by the petitioners filed an application under Section 12 of the
Protection of Woman from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to
as DV Act) before the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1 st Class, Hojai, Sankardev
Nagar, which was registered as Misc Case No. 34/2013.
4. The learned Judicial Magistrate upon hearing the parties directed the
petitioners to provide accommodation in the share household or to pay Rs.
2000/- per month towards rent for separate accommodation and to pay Rs.
100,000/- as compensation besides monthly maintenance under Section 125
CrPC proceedings. Against this, an appeal was filed before the learned Addl.
District & Sessions Judge (FTC), Hojai, Sankardev Nagar, which was dismissed.
As such, the criminal revision petition is being filed.
5. Pertinent that the respondent had also initiated under Section 125 CrPC
proceeding wherein the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Hojai,
Sankardev Nagar by Order dated 22.07.2014 allowed maintenance of Rs.
10,000/- per month. Though, against the said order a revision petition was
preferred before this Court being Criminal Revision Petition No. 65/2015, this
Court directed the petitioners to pay 50% of the maintenance allowance till
disposal of the said proceeding. It is submitted at the bar that the said
proceeding is still pending.
6. Mr. D. Kalita, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that under
Section 12 of the DV Act proceeding was allowed by the learned JMFC, Hojai,
Sankardev Nagar without there being any evidence of torture and harassment
and accordingly, the impugned Judgment and Order passed by the Appellate
Court affirming the said order is erroneous.
Page No.# 4/6
7. Per contra, Mr. R. Dev, learned counsel for the sole respondent submits
that it has clearly come out from the testimony of the prosecution witness that
the petitioner and his family members used to harass and torture the
respondent with demand of money.
8. I have heard the submissions advanced by the learned counsels for both
the parties and I have perused the materials available on record.
9. It appears that the present criminal revision petition is against the
Appellate Court's Order dated 12.06.2018, whereby the Appellate Court refused
to interfere with the Judgment and Order dated 08.07.2015 passed by the
JMFC, Hojai, Sankardev Nagar in Misc Case No. 35/2013 under Section 12 of the
DV Act.
10. It appears that in the aforesaid domestic violence proceeding, it has come
out from the evidence of the PW-1 i.e. the wife that the petitioners started
harassing her after marriage by telling her that the articles given at the time of
marriage were of inferior quality and it has also come out from her testimony
that the petitioner and his parents were demanding Rs. 15,00,000/- from her
but her father could only paid an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- and therefore, on
that pretext, the petitioner alongwith his family members were harassing her by
reminding her of the remaining money.
11. It further appears from the evidence of PW-1 that the respondent had
given birth to a still born child and upon returning home from the hospital, the
petitioner and his family members did not take care of her and give medical
assistance rather they assaulted and abused her.
12. It further appears that during cross examination, the petitioners could not
Page No.# 5/6
shake the aforesaid testimony of PW-1. It also appears that the testimony of
torture and harassment deposed by the PW-1 is also corroborated with PW-2,
PW-3 and PW-4.
13. It further appears that the petitioners adduced their evidences as DW-1
and DW-2 and in their testimony, they have generally denied the allegations of
demanding Rs. 15,00,000/- and other acts of torture.
14. It was in the aforesaid background that the learned JMFC after being
satisfied that the respondent has proved the harassment and torture meted to
her by the petitioner and his family members directed the petitioners prohibiting
from committing any act of or aiding or abetting in the commission of domestic
violence upon the respondent either at the place of her current stay or on her
return at the matrimonial house.
15. The learned JMFC also directed the petitioners to provide accommodation
to the respondent in the shared household or to provide separate
accommodation and in failure to do so, the petitioners was directed to pay Rs.
2000/- per month as rent to enable to the petitioner to live in a rented house.
16. The learned JMFC also further pleased to direct the petitioners to pay Rs.
100,000/- as compensation and damaged to the mental torture and emotional
distress caused by the acts of domestic violence committed by the petitioners.
17. The Appellate Court after re-appreaciating the said evidences was of the
view that the reliefs granted by the JMFC was correct and accordingly refused to
interfere with the aforesaid order of the JMFC.
18. This Court while exercising revisional jurisdiction shall not re-appreciate
Page No.# 6/6
the evidences and is only to see whether the order passed by the JMFC is in
accordance with law or not.
19. That being so, there is no palpable and manifest error apparent on the
face of the Judgment and Order of the Appellate Court. Accordingly, this
Criminal Revision Petition fails.
20. The Criminal Revision Petition stands dismissed. No cost.
21. Interim order, if any, passed earlier accordingly stands vacated.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
