LexMANIK KUTUM versus JULIE KUTUM
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B C D E F G H 916 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 2 S.C.R. MANIK KUTUM v. JULIE KUTUM Criminal Appeal No.448 of 2019 MARCH 07, 2019 [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE AND DINESH MAHESHWARI , JJ.] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s.125 – Maintenance – Application for maintenance filed by the respondent (wife) for herself and for her minor daughter – Trial court partly allowed the claim and awarded Rs. 2000/- p.m. towards maintenance for her minor daughter but rejected the claim insofar as it related to the respondent on the ground that she was not legally married wife of the appellant – Respondent filed revision in High Court – High Court remanded the case to trial court to decide application afresh – On husband’s appeal, held: High Court erred in remanding the case to trial court for fresh inquiry and for fixing the maintenance for the respondent (wife) – The need to remand the case to the trial court is called for only when some factual inquiry is required to be held to decide any factual issue involved in the case which cannot be undertaken at the revision stage or when it is noticed that there is no finding on any particular factual issue recorded by the trial court or when additional evidence is filed for the first time at the appellate/revision stage which requires examination by the trial court in the first instance and to record a finding in the light of such additional evidence – Such was not the case here because all the material for fixing the maintenance was on record – Appellant was working as Constable in RPF and his monthly salary was between Rs.30,000/- to Rs.35,000/- per month – Therefore, Rs.8,000/- is fixed as monthly maintenance payable by the appellant (husband) to the respondent (wife) – Appellant (husband) to pay a total sum of Rs.10,000/- every month to the respondent (wife), i.e., Rs.8,000/- towards maintenance for the respondent (wife) and Rs.2,000/- towards maintenance for minor daughter which is already fixed by the trial court and is upheld as being just and proper – Revisionary jurisdiction – Maintenance. [2019] 2 S.C.R. 916 916 A B C D E F G H 917 Disposing of the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. The High Court having recorded a finding of fact in the impugned order that the respondent-wife was the legally wedded wife of the appellant, it should not have then remanded the case to the SDJM for any inquiry and instead should have fixed the maintenance payable by the appellant (husband) to the respondent (wife) in the revision itself. More so because the respondent was not earning and had no independent source of any income to maintain herself. [Para 11][919-D] 2. The need to remand the case to the SDJM is called for only when some factual inquiry is required to be held to decide any factual issue involved in the case which cannot be undertaken at the revision stage or when it is noticed that there is no finding on any particular factual issue(s) recorded by the SDJM or when additional evidence is filed for the first time at the appellate/ revision stage which requires examination by the SDJM in the first instance and to record a finding in the light of such additional evidence. Such is not the case here because all the material for fixing the maintenance was on record. It is for these reasons, there was no need to remand the case to the SDMJ as it would only prolong the litigation causing harm to the respondent(wife). The appellant is working as Constable in RPF. His monthly salary is between Rs.30,000/- to Rs.35,000/- per month. It is just and proper to fix Rs.8,000/- as monthly maintenance payable by the appellant (husband) to the respondent (wife). The appellant (husband) will pay a total sum of Rs.10,000/- every month to the respondent (wife), i.e., Rs.8,000/- towards maintenance for the respondent (wife) and Rs.2,000/- towards maintenance for minor daughter which is already fixed by the SDJM and which is upheld as being just and proper. [Paras 12-15][919-E-H; 920-A, B] CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 448 of 2019 From the Judgment and Order dated 01.08.2017 by the Gauhati High Court at Guwahati, Assam in Criminal Revision Petition No. 102 of 2012. Ms. Seema Sharma, Somiran Sharma, Advs. for the Appellant. Sahil Tagotra, Adv. for the Respondent. MANIK KUTUM v. JULIE KUTUM A B C D E F G H 918 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 2 S.C.R. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. Thi
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.