Decided on October 01,1996



Nripendra Kumar Bhattacharyya, J. - (1.)This is a combind application under Section 401 read with Section 482 of the Cr.P.C, 1973 and under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of the delay. No ground has been made out showing the cause of delay. Be that as it may, the main revisional application is taken up for hearing alongwith the prayer for condonationo f delay I and is disposed of by the following order.
(2.)Heard the submission of the learned Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Falguni Sarkar being assisted by Mr. Srikumar Sinha. Considered the materials on record.
(3.)This is a case arising out of an application under Section 125 of the Cr. P.C. filed by the wife-petitioner in the Trial Court wherein she alleged that after torture as she had fallen ill, she sent information to her father and her father took her back to his house. After treatment she came round and came to her matrimonial home only to be driven out again after assault. It was further alleged in the petition of the wife that the opposite party-husband failed and neglected to maintain her and she had no independent source of income to maintain herself and has to remain under chill penury. She is maintaining herself from the bounty given by her father. On such allegation the application for maintenance was filed. In order to substantiate the case, the wife laid evidence through her witnesses numbering 4 of whom P.W. 1 was the wife herself, P.W. 2 was her father and other witnesses, namely, P.W. 3 and 4 are the independent witnesses. They all deposed supporting the petitioner-wife's case. P.W. 3 deposed about the assault on the petitioner-wife when she was brought back to the house of the opposite party-husband. P.W. 4 also deposed that he witnessed that the husband poured some poison in the mouth of the wife for which she had fallen ill and the wife was saved by the co-villagers and her father. Regarding the income of the husband, it was deposed that he had a monthly income of Rs. 1,000/- from the land belonging to the opposite party- husband, measuring about 4/5 Bighas. But it came out from the evidence that in order to avoid payment, the opposite party-husband transferred his land in favour of his son through his first wife. In consideration of the evidence on record and the material available thereon, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dakshin Dinajpur, allowed the petition of the wife and awarded maintenance of Rs. 250/-per month in favour of the wife on and from October, 1987 and gave certain direction regarding the mode of payment in his judgment and order dated 29th March, 1996 in M.R. Case No. 127/87. This judgment and/or order gives rise to the present petition.

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.