MOUSUMI AKTER Vs. MD. IKBAL HOSSAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition is filed under Sec. 397 & 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 read with Sec. 19 of the Family Court Act 1984, against the impugned judgment and order dtd. 4/4/2022 passed by the learned Addl. Judge, Family Court, West Tripura in connection with Case No. Criminal Misc. No.406 of 2018, wherein the learned Addl. Judge, Family Court passed an order directing the respondent to pay maintenance of Rs.10,500.00 every month to the revision petitioner.

(2.) The prosecution story, in brief, is that marriage between the petitioner-wife and respondent-husband was solemnized on 11/12/2005 as per Muslim rites and customs, in presence of the parents, relatives, and friends of both sides. Out of their wedlock, they gave birth to a female child on 11/9/2009. After that, the respondent-husband got a job offer as a Constable from Tripura police and he joined police training at the KTDS Police Training Academy. After the completion of the training period, the respondent-husband joined at Unakoti District. At that period, he started avoiding his wife as well as her minor daughter. When the respondent-husband came back home on leave, the petitioner-wife questioned him about his whereabouts, for which he brutally assaulted her without any reason. In the year, 2012, her minor daughter was admitted to Auxillium Girls School at the age of 3(three) years but the family members of the respondent did not wanted that, thereafter, both the parties shifted to a rented house at Nandannagar near their daughter's school. After 7/8 months, it is alleged that the family member again started asking the petitioner-wife to bring back her minor daughter to a general Bengali Medium School but the petitioner-wife did not change her mind and continued her minor daughter's studies in the Auxilium school. Moreover, the respondent stopped paying money to her and further stopped visiting the rented house. Finding no other alternative, in the year 2016 father of the petitioner-wife informed the matter to the higher authorities of the respondent to resolve the problem but he refuse to do so. On many occasions, the respondent assaulted her. Finding no other alternative, the petitioner-wife went back to her father's house along with her minor daughter and she was completely depending upon her parents having no source of income of her own, whereas the respondent neither made any communication nor provided anything towards their maintenance and livelihood. On 26/2/2018, the petitioner informed the higher authority of her husband and after discussion, the respondent gave a written commitment before the high authority to pay an amount of Rs.8,000.00 every month, but the respondent had sent only Rs.5,000.00 to the petitioner-wife. On 10/5/2018, the petitioner-wife along with her minor daughter met the Superintendent of police, North Tripura at Dharmanagar, but the respondent on seeing her got furious and threatened to kill her and her minor daughter by showing his service firearms. The petitioner-wife faced financial problems to maintain herself and her daughter's expenses. Therefore, she filed a petition under Sec. 125 of Cr.P.C. against the respondent before the learned Addl. Judge, Family Court, West Tripura Agartala claiming maintenance from the respondent for herself and her minor daughter. The said petition was registered as Misc.(main)406 of 2018. In the said petition, the petitioner-wife prayed before the Court below to pay an amount of Rs.20,000.00 per month as maintenance for herself and her minor daughter.

(3.) After receipt of the notice, the respondent-husband appeared and participated in the process of reconciliation, which ultimately failed and he submitted the written objection. In his written objection, the respondent-husband denied almost all the allegations made by the petitioner-wife in her application. He stated in his written objection that the petitioner-wife has been continuously putting pressure upon him since 2/3 months of their marriage to leave the company and house of his parents and to start residing with her at her father's residence. As he refused, she became furious and started mental torture upon him, for which, finding no other alternative, he was compelled to leave his paternal house and the company of his parents and started living in a rented house in the area of his father-in-law. It is stated that the petitioner-wife even did not get satisfied and she continued to torture him mentally and threatened him and his family member to involve in a false case, as his father is a superior officer to him. He stated that he was all along ready to stay with his wife and daughter, but the petitioner-wife voluntarily left him by making false allegations. He stated to have never tortured his wife either physically or mentally and alleged that initially, he had suffered in maintaining the studies of his daughter in private school and a rented house out of his meager income. The respondent-husband further contended that presently, the petitioner-wife is involved in a private service which she has concealed in her application and that out of his monthly salary, he has to incur huge expenditure of his old-aged parents as well as his own livelihood. Stating this the respondent-husband prayed before the Court below that he is unable to provide maintenance.