In the case of sunil biswas vs manisha biswas,Complaitant,Manisha Biswas,have filled a case at the Hanskhali PS Year 2025.FIR No 64/25,Date-08/02/2025.The case involves alleged offenses under BNS Sections 85/115(2)/316(2)/79/3(5) of the B. N. S. S 2023 and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. and a maintenance case under section 125.
Order on 10/09/2025
Today is fixed for interim hearing.
Both the parties are present by filing hazira through their concerned Ld. Advocates.
The record is taken up for hearing of interim maintenance petition filed on behalf of the
petitioner.
Heard both sides in full. Perused the materials on record. Considered.
Record is now taken up for passing necessary order in respect of petition for interim
maintenance filed by the petitioner/wife.The petitioner’s case, in a nutshell, is that she got married with the opposite party on
15.07.2024 in accordance with Hindu Rites and Customs. It is also submitted that
subsequent to solemnization of her marriage with the O.P., she went to her matrimonial
home along with the said stridhan articles. It is thereafter stated by the petitioner that after
solemnization of marriage, she began to lead conjugal life with the opposite party. After
that OP and his family members began to inflict torture upon the petitioner by claiming
more dowry from her. Finally, on 27.08.2024, the OP had ousted the petitioner after
forcibly taking away all the stridhan articles after assaulting her. After that the petitioner
had taken shelter at her paternal house. The petitioner has no source of income to
maintain herself. On the contrary, the O.P. is an able-bodied person and Station master
under Indian railways and earns monthly Rs. 70,000/- approximately therefrom. The
petitioner on the above grounds prays for interim maintenance to the tune of Rs. 20,000/-
per month for herself from the opposite party.
The opposite party contested this case by filing the Written Objection denying each and
every averment as made out in the petition for interim maintenance, however the O.P has
admitted the factum of marriage. After the marriage of the petitioner with the O.P., the
petitioner allegedly have some illicit demand from the OP and also created an unhealthy
relationship with the family member of the OP. However, OP also stated that the
petitioner went to her paternal house as per her own volition along with all her stridhan
articles. When the OP went to get the petitioner back then the petitioner clearly stated
that the petitioner will not stay together along with the OP.
It is further contended on behalf of the O.P. that he works at a service at Karnataka and
earns Rs. 39,000/- per month wherefrom he has to bear all his expenses as well as the
expenses of his aged mother. The opposite party, on the above grounds, prays for rejection
of prayer of petitioner for interim maintenance in the instant case.
To get an order of interim maintenance allowance, petitioner has to prove prima facie that
:- 1) she is the legally married wife of the Opposite party and 2) Opposite party has failed
and neglected to maintain the Petitioner, in spite of having sufficient means, 3) Petitioner
is unable to maintain herself.
Point no 1.
In the instant case, without prejudging any points raised by the respective parties, it
appears to this court that till date the marriage is subsisting between the parties, as the
same has been admitted by the O.P.
As a husband, the opposite party is duty-bound to maintain his wife and in the instant
case not a single farthing has been paid to show the bona fide gesture.
Point No 2;-
Petitioner got married around 1 year ago with the O.P and subsequently she was driven
out from her matrimonial home by the Opposite Party and since then the O.P has been
neglecting and refusing to maintain the petitioner. Whatever may be the reason, the fact
remains that Petitioner has been residing in separate house i.e. her paternal home and this
fact has been admitted by the O.P. It is also to be noted in this context that there is no
whisper in the four corners of record suggesting that Opposite Party ever provided
maintenance to the petitioner. The position being such, it can be prima-facie said that
Opposite Party has refused and neglected to maintain the petitioner.
The next question is whether the Opposite Party has sufficient means or not? Petitioner
contended that Opposite Party earns Rs. 70,000/- per month from his earning, but she
failed to produce any documents in support of her contention.
Opposite Party denied the same and specifically. OP has also admitted that he earns
monthly approximately Rs. 39,000/- per month. From the perusal of the materials
available in the record, exact income of either OP or the petitioner cannot be ascertained.
From perusal of the asset declaration submitted by the petitioner as well as OP it appears
before the Court that OP has admittedly more income than the petitioner.
The words ‘sufficient means’ occurring in section 144 of BNSS do not signify any visible means
such as, real property or definite employment. If a man is healthy and able bodied, he must be
held to possess the means to support his legally married wife and he cannot be relieved of merely
on the ground that he is unemployed or has a very little income. In the instant case, it is not the
plea of the Opposite Party that he is physically handicapped or physically unable to do any work.
In the light of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the view that Opposite Party has
sufficient means to maintain the petitioner.
Now it is observed by this Court upon perusal of the record that there is no whisper in the
four corners of record suggesting that Opposite Party ever provided maintenance to the petitioner.
The position being such, it can be prima-facie said that Opposite Party has refused and neglected
to maintain the petitioner. In this context it was observed in the case of 2005 Cri. LJ 3889 (3891), that
the question of necessity to grant interim maintenance is essentially a question to be
decided on prima facie assessment of position of both the parties before the Court. A detailed
inquiry is not contemplated while deciding an application for interim maintenance. In the instant
case, there is nothing on record to show that the petitioner/wife has independent source of
income. On the other hand, the OP/husband has not mentioned anything about his means of
livelihood despite his admission that he bears all his expenses by himself as well as his aged ill
mother . Thus, it is a matter of common prudence that a man who can bear all the expense of
himself as well as his aged mother , must have atleast some source of income which enables him
to maintain his daily livelihood. Thus, it prima facie appears that OP/husband is at a better
financial position compare to the petitioner/wife.
Point No 3:-
Petitioner also contended that she has no independent source of income. Nothing is on
record that the petitioner has any source of income of her own. Having regards to all these
circumstances, this Court finds no reason to disbelieve the assertion made by the Petitioner at this
interim stage. So, it is held that petitioner is able to establish prima facie that she has no
independent source of income. In other words, it can be said that Petitioner is unable to maintain
herself.
The provision of Section 144 of BNSS are intended to fulfill a social purpose. Their object is to
compel a man to perform the moral obligation which he owes to the society in respect of his wife
and children. By providing a simple, speedy but limited relief, it was aimed to ensure that the
neglected wife is not left at penury and in a destitute condition on the scrap-heap of the society
and thereby driven to a life vagrancy, immorality and crying crime for their subsistence.
Thus, keeping in view the benevolent nature of the Act, the provisions under the act
should be interpreted broadly. In Workmen of American Express International Banking
Corporation Vs. Management of American Express International Banking Corporation,
(1985) II LLJ 539 the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed:-
“The principles of statutory construction are well-settled. Words occurring in statutes of
liberal import, such as social welfare legislations, and ‘human rights’ legislations, are not to be
put in procrustean beds or shrunk to Lilliputian dimensions. In construing these legislations, the
imposture of literal construction must be avoided and the prodigality of its misapplication must
be recognized and reduced. Judges ought to be more concerned with the ‘colour’, ‘content’ and ‘
context’ of such statutes”.
In view of the discussion made above and regards being had to the provisions of law and
other materials on record in the considered view of this court, Petitioner is entitled to get interim
maintenance allowance for herself from the Opposite Party. But the question is what amount
should be awarded to the Petitioner which can said to be reasonable. The petitioner though has
claimed interim maintenance to the tune of Rs. 20,000/- per month for herself from the opposite
party. Considering the present market price and status of the parties, this Court is of the view that
if, Rs. 6,000/- per month in favour of the Petitioner towards her interim maintenance allowance,
it would be reasonable to either of the parties at this interim stage.
Hence, it is ORDERED
that the present application for interim maintenance allowance is hereby allowed on
contest in part in favour of the Petitioner considering the circumstances without any cost.
Opposite Party is hereby directed to make payment of a sum of Rs. 6,000/- per month in
favour of the Petitioner towards her interim maintenance allowance amount with effect from the
date of filing of the original application i.e. 04.03.2025 as per the guidelines provided by the
Hon’ble Apex Court in Rajnesh Vs. Neha (Criminal appeal No. 730 of 2020).. The payment must
be made within 10th day of each succeeding English Calendar month failing which, the petitioner
is at liberty to realize the same through Court.
Such amount is adjustable with the maintenance, if any, paid by the O.P. to the petitioner
under any other statute.
Let a copy of this order be supplied to the petitioner free of cost.
Fix 06.02.2026 for PW (evidence).
Dictated & Corrected by me.
Sd/- Sd/-
Judicial Magistrate 2nd Court, Judicial Magistrate 2nd Court,
Ranaghat, Nadia Ranaghat, Nadia
JO Code- WB0149
You may follow the link to understand 498A and how to deal it, Things to do if you are facing False 498A