Hon’ble Supreme  Court while dealing with a leave granted in S.L.P. here on 07-03-2019 in the case of “Manik Kutum Vs. Julie Kutum.” stated that in the matters the High Court erred in remanding the case to the SDJM for fresh inquiry and for fixing the maintenance for the respondent (wife). After discovering the fact that respondent is legally wedded wife of 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. Learned Abhay Manohar Sapre, J. decided the case on 07-03-2019.

In this case appeal is directed against the final judgment and order dated 01.08.2017 passed by the Gauhati High Court at Guwahati in Criminal Revision Petition No.102 of 2012. The appellant is the husband and the respondent is the wife. The respondent (wife) filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 claiming maintenance from the appellant (husband) for herself and for her minor daughter. By order dated 21.11.2011, the SDJM awarded Rs. 2000/- per month to daughter as maintenance but   didn’t awarded maintenance to wife on ground that she is not the legal wife of appellant. Wife filed for revision in  the Guhati High Court. The High Court erred in remanding the case to the SDJM for fresh inquiry and for fixing the maintenance for the respondent (wife).After discovering the fact  in Para 22 of the impugned order that the respondent(wife) is 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. The respondent was not having any source of income for maintenance of herself and daughter. According to Hon’ble Supreme  Court case is remanded 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. Prolonged litigation is causing harm to wife. As appellant is working as Constable in RPF and his monthly salary is between Rs.30,000/to Rs.35,000/per month.

The court held that the appellant (husband) will pay a total sum of Rs.10,000 (Ten Thousand) 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 we uphold as being just and proper. With the such modification in the impugned order in favour of the respondent (wife), the appeal thus stands disposed of.