Back
2025 Supreme(Gau) 1530
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
MITALI THAKURIA, J.
Rashidul Islam S/O Late Sadek Ali – Appellant
Versus
Saniara Begum D/O Sahed Ali – Appellant
Crl.Rev.P./275 of 2024
Decided on : 26-09-2025
For the Appellant : MR. R ISLAM, MR. M U MAHMUD,MR S ISLAM
For the Respondent: MR. R ALI, MR H A AHMED
Husbands have a legal obligation to provide maintenance to their wives, particularly when the wives are dependent and have suffered domestic abuse.
Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 125 - Maintenance - The petitioner challenged the Family Court's order directing him to pay Rs. 10,000/- per month as maintenance to the respondent, based on allegations of cruelty post-marriage and the petitioner's financial status. The petitioner claimed the respondent deserted him without reasonable cause and failed to adequately disclose her financial situation. However, the court found the respondent was subjected to mental harassment and had no income of her own. (Paras 4, 9, 10)
(B) The court emphasized the obligation of a husband to provide maintenance and recognized the respondent’s vulnerability due to domestic abuse. (Paras 10, 11)
Facts of the case:
The respondent filed for maintenance following allegations of cruelty and was ordered maintenance despite the petitioner’s claims of financial strain and lack of obligation due to desertion.
Findings of Court:
The Family Court justified the maintenance order considering the petitioner’s income and the emotional state of the respondent.
Issues: The key issues involved the adequacy of maintenance and the alleged desertion by the respondent.
Ratio Decidendi: The court upheld the Family Court's reasoning, stating the legal obligation of the husband to support his wife, especially when she has no independent source of income and has suffered abuse.
Result: Revision petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. basis for maintenance claim. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments regarding maintenance and income. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. court evaluation of evidence. (Para 9 , 10) |
| 4. validation of maintenance order. (Para 11) |
| 5. final dismissal of the petition. (Para 12) |
JUDGMENT :
MITALI THAKURIA, J.
1. Heard Mr. M.U. Mahmud, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. H.A. Ahmed, the learned counsel for the respondent.
2. This is an application u/s 438/442 BNSS challenging the impugned Final Order dated 19.06.2024 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Barpeta in F.C.(Crl.) Case No. 609/2022 u/s 125 Cr.PC whereby the petitioner was directed to pay maintenance allowance @ Rs. 10,000/- per month to the respondent from the date of filing of the application.
3. The case of the petitioner in brief is that the respondent filed an application u/s 125 Cr.PC seeking maintenance @ Rs. 30,000/- per month before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Barpeta with the allegation that only after 20 days of their marriage, she was subjected to cruelty on the instigation of the petitioner’s mother. It is further stated that the petitioner is a CISF employee and during her stay with his mother-in-law, she was subjected to torture by demanding some gold ornaments and cash amount. Finding no other alternative the father of the respondent also gave Rs. 50,000/- along with gold ornaments to the petitioner but in spite of that she was again subjected to cruelty by the petitioner even in his place of posting. Her pregnancy is also terminated by compelling her to consume some medicine and the petitioner had extramarital affairs with other girl and finally she was driven out from her matrimonial house and she took shelter in her parental house and thereafter she lodged a case for maintenance.
4. It is further submitted by Mr. Mahmud that after receiving the notice, the petitioner appeared, contested the case and also filed his written statement along with the affidavit of assets & liabilities. He admitted the marriage and cohabitation, though denied all other allegations of mental and physical torture on the respondent. During the pendency of the said case, the respondent also filed another case before the learned Court, Barpeta under the D.V. Act, falsely implicating his parents. At the time of their marriage, petitioner was working as a Constable in CISF. But, he left his job and at present he is working as a Driver and somehow maintaining his mother. It is further the case of the petitioner that the respondent left her matrimonial house by her own without any reasonable ground and for which she is not entitled to get any maintenance from the petitioner. After examination of PWs, the case was fixed for defence evidence. But, during that period there was an amicable settlement and the respondent agreed to withdraw the case pending in the Family Court and they again started their conjugal life. In the meantime, he joined his service and went to the place of posting leaving the respondent in his own house. But, subsequently it came to the knowledge of the petitioner that she did not withdraw the case and without informing the petitioner she contested the case. After hearing the petitioner side the learned Family Court had delivered his final order allowing the claim of maintenance filed by the respondent and directed the petitioner to pay Rs. 10,000/- per month from day of filing of the application.
5. It is further submitted by Mr. Mahmud that though the respondent filed her assets & liabilities along with her petition, but most of the paragraphs were not filled-up and especially the para 3 regarding the approximate expenditure and the bank statement etc. were not filled-up by the respondent including the income of the present petitioner etc. Except typing the proforma of the form, it was not duly filled-up which is required to be filled-up and as per the guideline of Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in case of Rajesh v. Neha (supra). But,
