Gauhati High Court
Crl.Rev.P./163/2023 on 16 May, 2025
1
GAHC010085702023
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Crl.Rev. Pet. No. 163/2023
1. Rupchan Bhuyan
S/O Tarif Bhuyan
Vill- Bhairaguri,
P.O. Bhairaguri
P.S. and District-Barpeta, Assam
Pin-781311
....Petitioner
-Versus-
1. Hamida Khatun
D/O Late Abdul Halim
Village Kaomari, P.S. Sarthebari
District Barpeta,
Assam
2. The State of Assam
To be represented by the Public Prosecutor Assam
.....Respondents
For Petitioner : Mr. P. Gogoi, Advocate
For Respondent (s) : Mr. H. A. Ahmed, Advocate
Date of Judgment : 16.05.2025
Crl.Rev. Pet. No. 163/2023 Page 1
2
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA
JUDGMENT
(Mridul Kumar Kalita, J.)
1. Heard Mr. P. Gogoi, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also
heard Mr. H. A. Ahmed, the learned counsel for the respondent.
2. This petition was registered on filing of an application under Section
397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973,
by the petitioner Rupchan Bhuyan, impugning the judgment and
order dated 20.01.2023 passed by the learned Principal Judge,
Family Court, Barpeta in Case No. F.C. (Crl) 263/2021, whereby the
petitioner was directed to pay a maintenance allowance of
Rs.10,000/- per month to the respondent wife and also Rs. 2,000/-
per month each to the minor daughters from the date of filing of the
petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
3. The facts relevant for consideration of the instant Criminal Petition,
in brief, are that the petitioner and the respondent were married to
each other as per Islamic Shariat Law about 10 years back. Out of
their wedlock, two daughters were born, namely Rabina Bhuyan and
Ms. Rukhsana Bhuyan. The petitioner is serving in CRPF, (Central
Reserve Police Force), and presently posted at Chhattisgarh, and his
wife, (the Respondent), stays at home and looks after her two
daughters.
Crl.Rev. Pet. No. 163/2023 Page 2
4. The respondent wife, namely, Hamida Khatun, had filed an
application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 against the petitioner before the Court of learned Principal
Judge, Family Court, Barpeta, seeking monthly maintenance
allowance for herself and her two minor daughters.
5. In her application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973, the respondent has alleged that the petitioner used
to subject her to physical and mental torture without any reason and
had also stated to her that he would marry another lady and needed
her permission to do so. It is also alleged in the application under
Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 that the
petitioner took the signatures of the respondent on a blank paper
sheet forcefully and drove her out of her matrimonial home and
since then, she is taking shelter in the house of her mother with two
minor daughters.
6. She has also stated that she has no source of income and is unable
to maintain herself and her minor daughters, whereas the present
petitioner is a CRPF personnel drawing a salary of about
Rs. 60,000/- per month. Besides that, it was also stated that the
petitioner has seven (07) Bighas of cultivable land, fisheries, etc. and
therefore, the respondent had prayed for a monthly maintenance
allowance of Rs. 20,000/- for herself and Rs. 10,000/- per month
each for her two minor daughters.
7. The present petitioner contested the claim of the respondent by
filing written statement in the proceeding under Section 125 of the
Crl.Rev. Pet. No. 163/2023 Page 3
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, wherein he denied the allegations
levelled against him. It was also stated in his written statement that
the respondent is a luxurious and characterless lady and used to
quarrel with him and his family members. He denied the allegation
that the petitioner subjected the respondent to cruelty.
8. He also stated in his written statement that he was drawing a salary
of Rs.42,917/- per month and was unable to pay monthly
maintenance allowance to the respondent as claimed by her.
9. Upon pleadings of both the parties, the learned Principal Judge,
Family Court, Barpeta formulated following point for determination:
i. Whether the first party and her two minor daughters are
entitled to maintenance from second party and if so, what
would be the just maintenance?
10. In support of her submission, the respondent examined herself as
PW-1, whereas the petitioner failed to adduce any evidence in spite
of sufficient opportunity being afforded to him for the same.
11. Ultimately, by the judgment and order, which is impugned in this
Revision Petition, the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Barpeta
had directed the present petitioner to pay the maintenance amount
of Rs.10,000/- per month to the respondent and maintenance
amount of Rs.2,000/- per month for each of her minor daughters.
12. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that though,
the petitioner had filed the written statement in the proceeding
under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973,
Crl.Rev. Pet. No. 163/2023 Page 4
however, he could not adduce evidence as he was staying outside
Assam at the relevant point of time due to his service engagement.
13. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the
petitioner has categorically stated in his written statement that out
of his total salary of Rs. 42,970/-, he has to pay a monthly
installment of Rs. 20,434/- against personal loan, insurance premium
of Rs.4,000/-, deduction of monthly PPF of Rs.5,000/- and personal
expenditure of Rs.7,000/- as well as medical expenditure of Rs.
6,000/- totaling to Rs. 42,434/-. He has submitted that after such
deduction nothing remains with the petitioner from which he could
give monthly maintenance allowance as claimed by the respondent
and this aspect was not taken into consideration by the Trial Court
while passing the impugned judgment.
14. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the
petitioner does not have any landed property or fisheries as claimed
by the respondent, which was taken into consideration while
deciding the quantum of maintenance awarded to the respondent by
the Trial Court. He further submits that as the quantum of
maintenance allowance directed to be paid by the petitioner to the
respondent is beyond the financial capabilities of the petitioner, the
impugned order is required to be interfered with.
15. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent has
submitted that the petitioner has admitted in his written statement
that he earns a monthly salary of Rs. 42,917/-, however, regarding
Crl.Rev. Pet. No. 163/2023 Page 5
the expenditure shown by him, he has not adduced any evidence to
prove the contentions raised by him in his written statement.
16. The learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the
respondent is legally married wife of the petitioner, which has not
been denied by the petitioner and, as such, it is his legal duty to
maintain the respondent and her minor children who are unable to
maintain themselves. He submits that the petitioner is an able-
bodied person and he is employed in CRPF getting a good salary,
therefore, he cannot avoid his statutory responsibility of maintaining
his wife and children who are unable to maintain themselves due to
want of any source of income.
17. In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the respondent
has cited a ruling of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of
Mahim Ali Vs. State of Assam and another (Criminal Revision
Petition No. 465/2022 dated 30.05.2024).
18. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for
both the sides and have gone through the materials available on
record, including the scanned copy of the F.C. (Crl.) Case No.
263/2021, which was requisitioned in connection with this case.
19. It is to be taken note that while considering the application filed by
the petitioner, this Court is exercising its revisional jurisdiction and
not the appellate jurisdiction.
20. It is a settled legal position that the appellate jurisdiction is co-
extensive with the original court's jurisdiction as for appraisal and
appreciation of evidence and reaching findings on facts, the
Crl.Rev. Pet. No. 163/2023 Page 6
Appellate Court is free to reach its own conclusion on evidence
untrammeled by any finding entered by the Trial Court, whereas, the
revisional power belongs to supervisory jurisdiction of a Superior
Court. While exercising revisional powers, the Court has to confine
to the legality and propriety of the findings and also whether the
Trial Court has kept itself within the bounds of its jurisdiction,
including the question as whether the Court has failed to exercise
the jurisdiction vested in it.
21. Thus, in this Revision Petition, this Court has only to confine itself to
the question of legality and propriety of the findings of the Trial
Court and also as to whether the impugned judgment has been
passed by the Trial Court within the bounds of its jurisdiction. This
Court can certainly interfere if there is any perversity in the
impugned judgment.
22. In the instant case, bare perusal of the impugned judgment would
show that though, the present petitioner has denied the claim of the
respondent by filing written statement, however, he failed to
substantiate his claims by adducing evidence.
23. Whereas, the respondent has adduced her evidence as PW-1 in
support of the averments made by her in the petition under Section
125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The testimony of PW-1
has remained uncontroverted. In her testimony, the respondent,
while deposing as PW-1, has proved the fact that the petitioner had
subjected her to cruelty and failed to maintain her as well as her two
minor daughters in spite of the fact that she does not have any
Crl.Rev. Pet. No. 163/2023 Page 7
source of income. It is also deposed by the PW-1 in her testimony
that the petitioner is a constable working in CRPF drawing a salary
of Rs.65,000/- per month. Though, the said testimony remained
uncontroverted, the Trial Court, while ascertaining the quantum of
maintenance, took into consideration the averment made in the
written statement wherein the petitioner has admitted that his salary
is Rs.42,917/- per month.
24. The Apex Court in several of its rulings have repeatedly observed
that Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is meant
to achieve a social purpose. The object is to prevent vagrancy and
destitution and it provides for a speedy remedy for supply of food,
clothing and shelter to a deserted wife. It gives an effect to the
duties of a man to maintain his wife, children and parents when they
are unable to maintain themselves.
25. The plea taken by the petitioner in his written statement that his
entire salary is incurred on repayment of personal loan and
expenditure on his health and personal expenditure could not be
proved by him by adducing any evidence. It appears that the Trial
Court has directed him to pay less than 1/3rd of his salary even if it is
assumed that his salary Rs.42,917/- per month which in no case is
exaggerated amount for maintenance of three members of his family
including the wife and two minor children.
26. Merely, denial of his liability would not entitle the petitioner to
escape from his statutory obligation to maintain his wife and two
minor children who are unable to maintain themselves. The
Crl.Rev. Pet. No. 163/2023 Page 8
petitioner has been unable to show any illegality or impropriety or
that the Trial Court had acted beyond jurisdiction while passing the
impugned judgment.
27. In view of the reasons and discussions made in the foregoing
paragraph, this Court is of view that the Trial Court has scrutinized
the materials available on record in the right perspective and has
ascribed reasons for arriving at the findings and directing the
present petitioner to pay a maintenance allowance of Rs.10,000/- to
his wife and Rs.2,000/- to each of his minor daughter.
28. This Court, therefore, finds no justification in interfering with the
impugned judgment and order of the Trial Court as this Revision
petition is devoid of any merit.
29. This Revision Petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
Crl.Rev. Pet. No. 163/2023 Page 9
