SANTOSH HALDER Vs. SASWATI HALDER (DUTTA) AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner/husband has preferred this Revision Petition under Sec. 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter mentioned as Cr.P.C. for the sake of brevity) against the order dated 7th November, 2013 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Calcutta in Misc. Case No. 55 of 2012 whereby and whereunder he allowed the application under Sec. 125 of the Cr.P.C. filed by the wife/opposite party No. 1 directing that the husband/petitioner shall pay Rs. 6000/ - (Rupees Six Thousand only) per month towards maintenance to the wife/opposite party No. 1.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the wife/opposite party No. 1 filed an application for maintenance under Sec. 125 of Cr.P.C. before the Family Court, Calcutta for grant of maintenance of Rs. 10,000/ - (Rupees Ten Thousand only) per month. It was stated in the application that the opposite party No. 1 was married with the petitioner on 10.10.2010 and it was registered under the Special Marriage Act, 1954. Subsequently, the marriage was solemnised on 26.10.2010 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. After solemnisation of the marriage, the opposite party No. 1 went to her matrimonial home and lived with the petitioner as husband and wife. The petitioner and his relations were dissatisfied with the amount of dowry and other articles given by the father of the opposite party No. 1 and they pressurised her to bring more money from her father. On her failure to fulfil such illegal demand, she was subjected to torture - both physical and mental. She endured all such tortures anticipating that good sense would prevail upon her husband and his inmates, but they did not amend themselves and they renewed torturing her. She was kept in a separate room and her husband used to give her Rs. 40/ - only per day as her maintenance. She became pregnant, but due to torture, miscarriage of her pregnancy took place. Despite repeated attempts made by the parents of the opposite party No. 1, she could not lead conjugal life peacefully and ultimately she was compelled to leave her matrimonial home on 29.05.2012 by the petitioner and his inmates. She then lodged a complaint at Gorfa Police Station on the basis of which a case under Sec. 498A/34 I.P.C. was registered. It was also mentioned in the application that the petitioner is a businessman having grocery -cum -stationery shop and his monthly income is more than Rs. 25,000/ - (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only). Despite having sufficient means, the petitioner has been neglecting to maintain her and so it was prayed that the petitioner/husband be directed to pay maintenance @ Rs. 10,000/ - (Rupees Ten Thousand only) per month.

(3.) The husband, that is the present petitioner, filed Written Objection, wherein he denied the allegations as alleged in the application. He contended that no dowry or articles were given as alleged except some gold ornaments which were kept by the wife/opposite party No. 1 in her father's custody when she went to her father's place during observation of "Dwiragaman" ceremony. She went to her father's house on 04.02.2011 to attend her sister's marriage ceremony and she returned only on 06.03.2011. She used to visit her father's place often without giving any intimation to the husband/petitioner. It was further contended that on 25.04.2011, wife/opposite party No. 1 went to her father's place on the plea of casting vote in Assembly Election of 2011 to be held on 27.04.2011, but she came back on 01.05.2011 and stayed only for a few days. Thereafter, she left her matrimonial home on 22.05.2011 on her own accord. The petitioner/husband contacted with her over telephone in the first week of June asking her to come back, but she refused on the ground that she was carrying. The petitioner/husband became glad on hearing the news, but after a few days he was informed by his wife/opposite party No. 1 that miscarriage took place. He was shocked and requested her to come back to lead conjugal life, but she declined. Lastly, she returned to her matrimonial home on 26.01.2012 but during her stay she refused to share bed with the petitioner and she finally left her matrimonial abode on her own accord on 28.05.2012 taking all her articles. Since then, she did not return despite repeated request made by the petitioner. She advised him to desert his mother and to hand over his share of grocery business to other partners i.e. his brother taking money and to sever the relation with his paternal relations and to live at her father's house permanently and to look after their printing and book binding business. The petitioner/husband did not accept such proposal and for that she initiated a criminal case against them. It is the further contention of the husband/petitioner that the wife/opposite party No. 1 has joint family business with her father having monthly income of Rs. 50,000/ - (Rupees Fifty Thousand only). On the contrary, he runs a grocery shop on partnership basis the income of which is about 25,000/ - (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) per month. He also takes medicine for his ailments. He, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the application under Sec. 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the wife/opposite party No. 1.