in the court of sub-divisional judicial magistrate...
Post on 24-May-2020
3 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
1
Smt. Sutapa Bhusan, SDJM (M), Titabar Misc. Case No. 35/2018
IN THE COURT OF SUB-DIVISIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE (M), TITABAR
Ref. : Misc. case No. 35 of 2018
Under section 125 of Cr.P.C.
Smt. Minakshi Chakraborty …... 1st Party
-Vs-
Sri Suman Chakraborty ….. 2nd Party
PRESENT : SMT. SUTAPA BHUSAN, A.J.S.
SUB-DIVISIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE (M),
TITABAR
Date of recording 1st party evidence …….. 16.07.2019, 02.08.2019, 03.09.2019
Date of recording 2nd party evidence ……. Nil.
Date of argument ....... 19.11.2019
Date of judgment/order ....... 24.12.2019
Ld. Advocates for the 1st party .... Mr. Deepak Prasad, Mrs. Anindita
Saikia & Mrs. R. Devi
Ld. Advocate for the 2nd party .... Nil.
JUDGMENT AND ORDER (Ex-parte) 1. The application is filed by the 1st party under section 125 of Cr.P.C. where
1st party inter-alia states that her marriage was solemnized with the 2nd party on
23.01.2018 as per Hindu Customs and Rites and at the time of her marriage, she
was provided with all the ‘streedhan’ as required in her marital life. 1st party
states in her petition that the 2nd party is a businessman by profession having his
own shop deals with gift items, Xerox, mobile recharge card, etc. under the
name and style as “Balaji Enterprise” situated at Barma Camp, Dimapur and his
father Sri Sibu Prasad Chakraborty is the Chief Ticket Inspector in Indian Railway
presently posted at Dimapur Railway Station. 1st party also states that at the time
2
Smt. Sutapa Bhusan, SDJM (M), Titabar Misc. Case No. 35/2018
of marriage the 1st party was studying in H.S. Final Year at Mariani College,
Mariani. It was a mutual settlement between both the families that the 1st party
will continue her studies after marriage and accordingly after 15 days of her
marriage the father of the 1st party took her home for giving the H.S. Final
Examination. When the examination was over the father of the 1st party informed
the 2nd party to take the 1st party to their home that the 2nd party had shown no
interest to take back her home and always make silly excuses therefore the 1st
party was bound to stay at her paternal home for 1½ months. And at last leaving
with no other option on 20.03.2018 the father of the 1st party took her to 2nd
party’s home. That the 2nd party gradually started to abuses the 1st party with
filthy languages and implicit mental torture upon her. The 1st party tried to adjust
with her conjugal life considering all those atrocities as a domestic wear and tear
of the conjugal life and everything will be alright as the time goes by. That the
2nd party and his father Sri Sibu Prasad Chakraborty demanded dowry from the
1st party and ask her to bring valuable items from her paternal house. When the
1st party refused to abide by their demand, the 2nd party had physically assaulted
her. That the 1st party in her matrimonial home was treated like a maid and she
was almost compel to confine in the kitchen only. The 2nd party and his family
members compel the 1st party to do all the household works without any rest and
did not provide her proper food and water. That the 1st party tried to adjust with
all these traumas considering that these are domestic wear and tear and as the
time goes by the things will fall into places but her hope and aspirations of the
peaceful marital life did not materialize. That the 2nd party since the day of his
marriage never took any care and responsibilities as a husband. That the 2nd
party always behaved weirdly with the 1st party and whenever the 1st party
wishes to be intimated with him, he always avoided her under various pretext.
That on 17.04.2018, the father of the 1st party took her home for NRC related
matter and about cruel behavour of her husband/2nd party and their parents.
After completion of NRC works on 01.05.2018 the father of the 1st party took her
back to the 2nd party’s home. That on 20.05.2018 the parties of the 1st party
3
Smt. Sutapa Bhusan, SDJM (M), Titabar Misc. Case No. 35/2018
along with her paternal uncle Bijay Chakraborty and Manab Chakraborty went to
2nd party’s home at Dimapur for reconciliation between 1st party and 2nd party.
But parents of the 2nd party did not allow them to enter their house and give a
place to sit down at Railway guest house. The father of the 2nd party and the 2nd
party itself alleges that the 1st party is not a virgin and the 2nd party came to
know this at the very first night of their marriage and they alleged that she has
an affair with another man before her marriage. The father of the 2nd party have
given assurance that the difference between 1st party and 2nd party will be
resolved by him but he fails to keep his promise and he said the 1st party that
they will only able to provide food and cloth to the 1st party. That the 2nd party
from the very first night of his marriage shown strange behaviour although the
2nd party seem to be a well built healthy made but his attitude and conduct
showed some bizarre as he showed some female characteristic in his behaviour.
The 2nd party has serious sexual problem and he has taken medicine (Joributi) as
being advised by some local “Baba” at his locality whenever the 1st party tried to
become intimate with the 2nd party he always gave some strange reason for not
making any physical relationship with the 1st party. That on 03.06.2018 the
parents of the 1st party along with her paternal uncle Manab Chakraborty and
Bijay Chakraborty and one neighbor Anita Roy went to 1st party matrimonial
home and found the 1st party in a horrible manner. The second party and his
father abused them with foul languages and asked them to take the 1st party
with them otherwise the 2nd party will kill her. They have no other option but
took the 1st party to Mariani. That the parents of the 1st party along with
President and Member of Surujmukhee Mahila Committee, Mariani Smt. Niru
Buragohain and Sukla Banik went to 1st party’s matrimonial home trying to
settled the differences between 1st party and the 2nd party on the occasion dated
26.07.2018 and 12.08.2018 but they have not got any fruitful result. That since
03.06.2018 the 1st party is living with her parents. The 1st party is only 20 years
old and she failed to pass the H.S. Final Year Examination therefore she took the
admission again in H.S. 2nd Year at Mariani College, Mariani and she is not in a
4
Smt. Sutapa Bhusan, SDJM (M), Titabar Misc. Case No. 35/2018
position to maintain herself. The 2nd party till date never bears a single penny in
the 1st party. The 1st party is facing insurmountable financial hardship for raising
educational expenses. That the 1st party is living a miserable life with no hope
and aspiration. She was waiting with a faint expectation that the 2nd party will
come back and take her and to resume their conjugal life, but unfortunately her
hope did not yield the desired results as the 2nd party never turned upto
reconcile. That the 2nd party is an established businessman having his own shop
at Barma Camp, Dimapur under the name and style of “Balaji Enterprise” deals
with gift items, Xerox and mobile recharge card. The 2nd party’s father Sri Sibu
Prasad Chakraborty is the Chief Ticket Inspector in Indian Railway presently
posted at Dimapur Railway Station and together the 2nd party and his father
earns more than Rs. 2,00,000/- per month. That the 1st party at present solely
relying on the income of her parents as she is unable to maintain herself. The 1st
party is facing immense difficulty in maintaining herself. The 2nd party in spite of
having all the luxury and comfort as mentioned herein above did not provide a
single penny to the 1st party till date for her maintenance and placed the 1st party
in penurious and hopeless position and the 1st party being left with no other
option compel to file this maintenance application. Hence, the 1st party prays
before this Court to grant maintenance of amount of Rs. 30,000/- (Rupees Thirty
Thousand) only per month as per provision of law.
2] On filing of this application under section 125 Cr.P.C. same was
registered and notice was issued to the second party, who appeared and
contested this case by filing written statement. 2nd party in his written statement
has denied all the facts mentioned by the 1st party paragraph wise and stated
that the petition has been filed by the 1st party with false allegation and cooked
by stories to put the 2nd party to harassment for the reason best known to the
said 1st party. Hence, the petition is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed.
2nd party stated that the statement made by the 1st party in Para No. 2 of the
Misc. petition are denied and in this regard the answering 2nd party states that
5
Smt. Sutapa Bhusan, SDJM (M), Titabar Misc. Case No. 35/2018
the 2nd party is not a Businessman by Occupation, but he is a mere Private
Employee, having earning of Rs. 5,500/- (Rupees Five Thousand and Five
Hundred) only. It is not correct to say that the second party is having his Shop in
the name and style of M/S. Balaji Enterprise, in fact, the said business
establishment was closed on 09/02/2018 owing to failure of business and
thereafter the 2nd party is serving in a Private Firm at Dimapur and supporting his
livelihood. It is stated further that the 2nd party is presently residing in a rented
house since after separation from his father. 2nd party stated that the statement
made in Para No. 3 of the Misc. petition as regards to the solemnization of
marriage, the answering second party offers no comments, however, as regards
to the stridhan, the second party states that considering the economic
background of the father of the 1st party, the 2nd party had solemnized marriage
without any gift or offer from the father of the 1st party stated as ‘stridhan’. Thus,
the 1st party has file this instant Misc. petition under false pleas and cooked up
stories. 2nd party also stated that the statements made in Para No.4 of the
petition as regards to the going of the 1st party at her father’s house for
appearing examination are not controverted, however, since after taking her last
examination, the first party did not turned up to matrimonial home, rather on
every occasion of the calling of the second party to come back the first party had
been delaying her return under false plea. 2nd party stated that the statement
made by the 1st party in Para No.5 of the Misc. petition are denied and in this
regard the answering second party states that after her return to matrimonial
home, the 1st party started misbehaving with the 2nd party and his parents and
the 1st party on every occasion, now and then, started pressurizing 2nd party to
take her to the father’s home, even denying conjugal relation with the second
party. 2nd party stated that the statement made by the 1st party in Para No.6
inter-alia that “the second party and his father Sri Sibu Prasad Chakraborty
demand dowry from the 1st party and asked her to bring valuable items from her
parental house. When the 1st party refused to abide by their demand the 2nd
party had physically assaulted her” asserted her blatant lie and in this regard the
6
Smt. Sutapa Bhusan, SDJM (M), Titabar Misc. Case No. 35/2018
answering second party states that the first party with a view to harass the
second party putting such baseless unfounded allegation against the second
party. 2nd party stated that the statements made by the first party in Para No. 7
of the Misc. petition inter-alia “that the fist party in her matrimonial home was
treated like a maid and she was almost compel to confine in the kitchen only.
The second party and his family members compel the first party to do all the
household works without any rest and did not provide her proper food and
water,” the second party states that during those days the second party was
residing with his parents in Railway Colony Quarter, wherein the family consisted
four members and the mother of the second party used to do her household
works with the help of the domestic aid, whereto during the staying period of the
fist party in matrimonial home, the first party was not required to do any
household works. 2nd party stated that the statement made in Para No. 8 are
denied and in this regard the answering 2nd party states that it is the first party
who since after keeping her steps to matrimonial home and during her brief stay,
always treated the second party and his parents indifferently and the first party
every and now and then was pressurizing the second party to provide monetary
assistance enabling to switch over the father of the first party form present
vegetable vendor to a permanent sitting business. 2nd party stated that the
statement made by the first party in Para No. 9 of the Misc. petition inter alia
“that the first party tried to adjust with all these trauma considering that these
are domestic wear and tear and as the time goes by the things will fall into
places but her hope and aspirations of the peaceful material life did not
materialize. That the 2nd party since the day of his marriage never took any care
and responsibilities as a husband. That the second party always behaved weirdly
without the first party and whenever first party wishes to be intimated with him,
he always avoided her under various pretext….” are controverted and in this
regard the second party states that the first party did not have notion to stay at
matrimonial home, whereto the first party used to leave matrimonial home with
the plea of bringing the issue of N.R.C. work. 2nd party stated that the
7
Smt. Sutapa Bhusan, SDJM (M), Titabar Misc. Case No. 35/2018
statement made in Para No. 10 by the first party in the Misc. petition inter-alia
“that on 20.04.2018 the parents of the first party along with her paternal uncle
Bijoy Chakraborty went to the second party’s home at Dimapur for reconciliation
between first party and second party. But parents of the second party did not
allow them to enter their house and give a place to sit down at Railway gust
house. The father of the second party and the second party itself alleges that the
first party is not a virgin and the second party came to know this at the very first
night of their marriage and they alleged that she has an affair with another man
before her marriage. The father of the second party have given assurance that
the difference between first party and second party will resolve by him but he
fails to kept his promise and he said the first party that they will only able to
provide food and cloth to the first party…..” are denied and in this regard the
second party states that first party with a view to put the second party and his
parents to harassment and suffering are putting such unfounded and baseless
allegation. The statement made in Para No. 11 by the first party in the Misc.
petition is denied and the averments of the first party are crystal clear about the
attitude of the first party. The statement made in Para No. 12, as regards to the
appearance of the parties are not denied, however, the parties and accompanied
persons attached the second party and his parents with abusive/filthy languages
and it is not correct that the second party asked the father of the first party to
take her otherwise she would be killed. 2nd party stated with respect to Para No.
14 that the first party is somehow well educated and is engaged in giving tuition
to support her parents. 2nd party stated that the statement made in Para No. 15
and Para No. 16 by the first party in the Misc. petition are not correct, as it is the
first party herself who has raised the physical bail of the second party. The 2nd
party stated that the statement made in Para No. 17 by the first party in the
Misc. petition is denied as the first party is imparting private tuition and which is
sufficient to maintain the said first party. Therefore, second party prays before
this Court to dismiss this instant case.
8
Smt. Sutapa Bhusan, SDJM (M), Titabar Misc. Case No. 35/2018
3] Based on the above pleadings of the parties the point which
arise for determination in this case are :-
1. Whether the 1st party is legally married wife of the second party?
2. Whether 2nd party refused or neglected to maintain 1st party?
3. Whether the 1st party without sufficient cause is living away from 2nd
party?
4. Whether the 2nd party has sufficient means to provide maintenance to
the 1st party?
5. Whether the 1st party is entitled to the relief of maintenance as prayed
for?
4] Evidence of 1st party is lead by herself, who is examined as PW1
and three others as PW2, PW3 and PW4. 2nd party had not adduced any evidence
in this case.
5] I have heard both sides and also perused the materials
and evidence on record. My decision and reasons for the decision are as
follows:-
6] PW1, Smt. Minakshi Chakraborty is the Informant of this case who
has stated in her evidence that she got married with the 2nd party on 23.01.2018
and she started to live with 2nd party. When their marriage was settled (her final
examination of H.S. XII was nearby), it was agreed that after marriage she shall
be allowed to give H.S. Final Examination. But after marriage in-laws restrained
her to give exam which was 15 days after marriage. After 15 days of marriage
her father went to her husband’s house and bring her back to give exam. Her
father-in-laws Shibu Prasad Chakraborty called her father over telephone that
she cannot wear saree, cannot work properly and she does not know manners.
2nd party refused to take her back. After completion of examination when her
9
Smt. Sutapa Bhusan, SDJM (M), Titabar Misc. Case No. 35/2018
father called her husband to take her, her husband told him that he is busy and
could not take her back and asked her father to take her to 2nd party’s house. On
20.03.2018, her father along with her brother took her to her husband’s house at
Dimapur. Then 2nd party started mental torture upon her along with mother-in-
law and father-in-law. Her husband refused to maintain conjugal relationship
with her. 2nd party and other in-laws demanded Rs. 2,00,000/- from her father
and said if said amount is paid then their relationship (husband-wife) will become
good. Her father told that he is unable to pay the money. Her father-in-law in
drunken condition mentally tortured her for fulfilling demand of Rs. 2,00,000/-.
After ashirbad also 2nd party demanded money. Father-in-law said that if money
is not given, she has to stay there as Servant and if she refuse to stay like
Servant she can go back to her father’s house. 2nd party and in-laws confine her
if some outsider came to house. They also used to treat her like Servant and she
had to work all the work of kitchen. When she beg to her husband to start good
relationship with her he kicked her and told that he does not like her now and
asked her to go to her father’s house. For NRC work on 17.04.2018 her parents
went to 2nd party’s house and took her. Since then 2nd party had not came to
take her back, though her father called them. Her father-in-law and husband had
not shown any interest to take her back. Again on 20.05.2018 her father and
brother took her to her husband’s house. Like earlier 2nd party and in-laws
continued torture upon her. Father-in-law also started to threaten her to beat
with a stick. Then she informed her mother over telephone. Then her uncle Bijoy
Chakraborty, Anita Roy, her mother and father went to Dimapur to discuss over
the matter. 2nd party and in-laws behaved badly with her parents and relatives.
Her father-in-law is working as T.T. Inspector. They took her relatives and
parents to sent house instead of house and said 2nd party is not satisfied with her
and 2nd party said that on first day in bed he had understood that she has illicit
relationship with another person and he is not satisfied with her to continue
married life. Her father-in-law insisted to keep her to in-laws house and he will
settle the matter. But he never tried to settle and always asked her to return to
10
Smt. Sutapa Bhusan, SDJM (M), Titabar Misc. Case No. 35/2018
her parent’s house if she cannot stay in their house like Servant. 2nd party has
some sexual problems and he is impotent. She saw him taking many medicines
and also realized from their physical relationship. On 03.06.2018, her parents
were forced to take her back to her parent’s house. 2nd party to cover his own
fault tried to blame her by bringing various allegations against her. Her father
tried to settle the matter with the interference of Mahila Samiti but no fruitful
result came out. Since 03.06.2018 2nd party has never tried to take her back,
never called her or never given any maintenance. Her father is financially weak
and she need Rs. 30,000/- for her education and maintenance. Her husband has
shop in the name of Balaji Enterprise where gift items, recharge card and Xerox
business is run by her husband. Her husband is single child of her father-in-law.
Father-in-law is working as Chief T.T. Her husband earns more than Rs. 50,000/-
p.m. from all sources and father-in-law also earns more than 1,00,000/- per
month. Their total income is Rs. 2,00,000/- per month.
7] PW2, Sri Bijoy Chakraborty deposed in his evidence that 1st party is
his niece. She got married with 2nd party on 23.01.2018 as per Social Rites and
Rituals. After 7-8 days of marriage dispute started. Prior to marriage it was
agreed that 1st party will be allowed to appear in H.S. examination. For that
purpose father of 1st party brought her in his house. After completion of
examination no one from in-laws came to take her back. Then 1st party father
went to the house of 2nd party to keep her there. Again for NRC hearing father of
1st party brought her and again took her back to father’s house. Then phone
came to the father of 1st party to take her back. 1st party’s father when refused
to take her back then they send her to their house with unknown person. For 1-
1½ months they remained silent. They decided to go there. She, along with
father, mother of 1st party, and one of her brother Manab went to the house of
2nd party on 20.05.2018. They were sitting in the house of 2nd party but no one
came to talk with them. They went to Railway Station and met father of 2nd
party. He took her in Railway Guest House and call 2nd party. 2nd party told that
11
Smt. Sutapa Bhusan, SDJM (M), Titabar Misc. Case No. 35/2018
he is not willing to keep 1st party. Father of 2nd party told that 2nd party is not
satisfied with 1st party. They asked the reason. Then 2nd party blamed that 1st
party had earlier illicit relationship with another boy which he understood when
he slept with 1st party after marriage. They became very disappointed. Father of
2nd party told to give some time and he will settle the matter. On his assurance
they keep 1st party in the house of 2nd party. But father of 2nd party demanded
Rs. 2,00,000/- in return. Thereafter, torture started with the 1st party. She was
confined in a room. 1st party then informed about torture by whatsapp and
through video call. On 03.06.2018, they again went to the house of 2nd party and
took her back for her treatment. From then 1st party is staying in father’s house.
2nd party has shop in Main Road, where Xerox, gift items are there. He is also a
Distributor of Nestle Company. During marriage 2nd party told that he earns
about 1,00,000/- per month. 1st party requires Rs. 30,000/- per month for her
education and other expenses.
8] PW3, Smt. Kanika Chakraborty deposed in her evidence that 1st party
is her daughter. 2nd party is her son-in-law. On 23.01.2018, they got married
socially. It was agreed prior to marriage that 1st party will be allowed to give
examination. Accordingly, 1st party’s father brought her for examination. But in-
laws never came to take her back. 1st party father went there with 1st party to
keep her. But since then torture started to 1st party. 1st party crying informed the
torture over telephone. They went to the house of 2nd party to settle the matter.
2nd party neglects them. 2nd party and his family members brought many
allegations regarding manner of 1st party. On 20.05.2018 when discussion was
going on with 2nd party and his father then 2nd party brought allegation of having
illicit relationship of 1st party with another person. Since 03.06.2018, 1st party is
staying in their house. Though they tried to communicate with 2nd party they
switched off their mobile. 2nd party has told that his income will be around Rs.
1,00,000/- per month, prior to marriage. 1st party requires Rs. 30,000/- per
month for education and other expenses.
12
Smt. Sutapa Bhusan, SDJM (M), Titabar Misc. Case No. 35/2018
9] PW4, Sri Ajoy Chakraborty deposed in his evidence that 1st party is his
elder daughter. He knows 2nd party. On 23.01.2018 1st party got married with 2nd
party socially and as per agreement prior to marriage that 1st will come back to
her mother’s house for appearing in exam. Accordingly, 09.02.2018 he went to
2nd party’s home to bring 1st party. The day when he brought 1st party, father of
2nd party called his wife and complaint many allegations against 1st party. When
he heard this after coming home he called back but he has not picked up the
phone. Then he called 2nd party, 2nd party stated that matter will be resolved and
not to worry. On the next day 2nd party called 1st party and scolded her. After
exam he went along with 1st party and kept her there. Again on 17.04.2018, he
went to bring 1st party back to her mother’s home for NRC hearing. On
20.05.2018 he went again to keep her in her in-laws house. After two days
mother of 2nd party called and asked her to take her back when they refused
they sent her back to mother’s house. But they never came to take her back. For
that reason he went to keep her there. Thereafter, all the in-laws started to
torture 1st party severely. 1st party requested them to take her. They went there
but in house they cold not meet her in-laws. They went to meet them in Office.
He along with his brother, father of 2nd party were present, where 2nd party
alleges that 1st party had illicit relationship prior to marriage and he does not
want to stay with 1st party. They asked father of 2nd party wheat will happen to
1st party. He replied that if they give Rs. 2,00,000/- he will settle the matter.
They told their inability to pay Rs. 2,00,000/- and came back keeping 1st party
there. From that night 1st party started to call them and told them that 2nd party
and in-laws started severe torturing. Getting no alternative they went there with
the person who settled their marriage and brought 1st party for treatment. But
since then 2nd party neither called them nor paid any maintenance amount. They
took help of Mahila Samiti. But the matter could not be resolved. When marriage
was settled then 2nd party and his father told they have sufficient property. He
saw that 2nd party has a shop namely Balaji Enterprise in Main Town with gift
items, mobile recharge card and dealership of cerelac and 2nd party stated his
13
Smt. Sutapa Bhusan, SDJM (M), Titabar Misc. Case No. 35/2018
income will be around Rs. 50,000/- per month. One Naga people told him of
having business of collection of money. Taking together, the income of 2nd party
will be Rs. 1,00,000/-. As father of 2nd party is a Government Servant, 2nd party
has no burden to maintain others. His daughter needs Rs. 30,000/- for her
education and other expenses.
10] Point for determination No.1:-
PW1/1st party stated that her marriage was solemnized as per
Hindu Customs and Rites with the 2nd party on 23.01.2018. In written statement
2nd party admitted his marriage with 1st party. All the witnesses of 1st party has
also corroborated about the fact of marriage and stated about consummation of
marriage of parties as husband and wife. Since fact of marriage between parties
is an admitted position and admitted facts needs not be prove, so it is found that
1st party is legally married wife of the 2nd party. This point is therefore decided in
favour of the first party.
11] Point for determination No. 2. & 3.
PW1 in her evidence stated that PW1/1st party was tortured by the
2nd party. PW1 stated that 2nd party stated to demand dowry from her. Also from
the evidence of 1st party, it appears that 2nd party used to torture her on several
occasions. 1st party being unable to bear tortures started to live in her parental
house. PW1 deposed that she is also not maintained by the 2nd party. All the PWs
corroborated regarding torture of 2nd party and his family member upon 1st party.
12] On the other hand, 2nd party in his written statement though
denied all the allegations and alleges that 1st party willfully started to live in her
parent’s house but no corroborating witness is examined to prove such claim.
14
Smt. Sutapa Bhusan, SDJM (M), Titabar Misc. Case No. 35/2018
13] From the evidence of PW1, PW2, PW3 and PW4, it appears that
preponderance of probabilities about alleged torture of first party by the second
party is more in favour of the 1st party. On the other hand, 1st party’s evidence is
that she was not maintained by the 2nd party and was tortured on several
occasions for fulfilling demand dowry from her is found to be more believable
and trustworthy and therefore, both the issues are decided in favour of the first
party.
14] The marital life of 1st party and 2nd party was not long lived and
evidence proved beyond doubt that there was sufficient cause for the first party
to remain away from the second party, which caused, has been created by the
second party himself.
15] Point for determination No.4 & 5:-
In view of the discussions in point No.1, 2 and 3, I am of the
opinion that the 1st party is entitled to the relief of maintenance as prayed for
vide her petition. About income of the second party, the first party stated that
the second party is a healthy and able person and is a businessman and also
being lawfully husband of 1st party. As a husband, 2nd party is bound to maintain
1st party in absence of anything contrary. Though in written statement 2nd party
claim that he has no business now and he is presently privately employed but no
evidence produced to prove such claim. As there is nothing material on record to
show income of 1st party, 2nd party is liable to maintain 1st party.
16] From the above facts, I am of the opinion that the second party is
able bodied person, and from his earning he can also maintain the first party,
who is entitled to the benefit of maintenance under section 125 Cr.P.C.
17] Considering the status of both the parties, and the ability of
second party, I am therefore, of the opinion that the maintenance @ Rs. 4,000/-
15
Smt. Sutapa Bhusan, SDJM (M), Titabar Misc. Case No. 35/2018
p.m. for the maintenance of 1st party per month will be sufficient as maintenance
allowance to the first party.
18] Considering the torture upon the 1st party by the 2nd party, 2nd party is
directed to pay compensation of Rs. 20,000/- to the 1st party.
O R D E R
In view of above discussions, the application of the first party is therefore
allowed on contest directing the second party to pay Rs.4,000/- (Rupees Four
Thousand) monthly to the first party for maintenance w.e.f. the date of passing
this judgment and order i.e. 24/12/2019.
Considering the torture upon the 1st party by the 2nd party, 2nd party is
directed to pay compensation of Rs. 20,000/- to the 1st party.
Let a copy of the judgment and order be given free of cost to the 1st
party.
Given under my hand and seal of this Court on 24th day of December,
2019.
(Smt. Sutapa Bhusan)
Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (M),
Titabar
16
Smt. Sutapa Bhusan, SDJM (M), Titabar Misc. Case No. 35/2018
ANNEXURE.
WITNESSES FOR THE 1ST PARTY :
P.W.1 ... Smt. Minakshi Chakraborty
P.W.2 … Sri Bijoy Chakraborty
P.W.3 … Smt. Kanika Chakraborty
P.W.4 … Sri Ajoy Chakraborty
WITNESSES FOR THE OPPOSITE PARTY/2ND PARTY:
NIL.
DOCUMENTS ANNEXED & EXHIBITED BY THE 1ST PARTY:
NIL.
DOCUMENTS ANNEXED & EXHIBITED BY THE 2ND PARTY:
NIL.
(Smt. Sutapa Bhusan)
Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (M),
Titabar
top related