The court affirmed that the maintenance amount must reflect current living standards, considering the economic situation and obligations of an able-bodied husband to support his family.

JUDGMENT :

MANISH CHOUDHURY, J.

1. Heard Mr. A.T. Sarkar, learned counsel for the revision petitioner; Mr. R.R. Kaushik, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent no. 1 State; and Mr. S. Nawaz, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2.

2. This criminal revision petition under Section 438 read with Section 442, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita [BNSS], 2023 is preferred to assail a Judgment dated 04.08.2025 passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge no. 2, Nagaon, Assam [‘the Appellate Court’, for short] in Criminal Appeal no. 06[N]/2025. By the Judgment dated 04.08.2025, the Appellate Court had dismissed the criminal appeal preferred by the revision petitioner as the appellant against a Judgment and Order dated 03.01.2025 passed by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class [‘the Trial Court’, for short] in Misc. Case no. 54/2019.

2.1 The facts, in brief, leading to the institution of this criminal revision petition can be stated as follows : the marriage between the revision petitioner [hereinafter referred to as ‘the petitioner’ and/or ‘the petitioner-husband, for convenience] and the respondent no. 2 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the respondent’ and/or ‘the respondent-wife’, for convenience] was solemnized in the year 2010. Out of the wedlock, a boy child was born to them on 05.07.2011. Due to discords and differences, the respondent with her son started to reside separately from the petitioner since the year 2012.

3. In the year 2012, the respondent-wife instituted a proceeding, C.R. Case no. 2108/2012 under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 [‘the D.V. Act’, for short] against the petitioner and other in-laws seeking various reliefs alleging commission of domestic violence upon her. Upon adjudication, the Trial Court by a Final Order dated 01.06.2017 had granted monetary reliefs under Section 20 in the form of maintenance allowance of Rs. 2,000/- per month to the respondent-wife and Rs. 1,000/- to her minor son along with some other reliefs under Section 18, Section 19, Section 20 and Section 22 of the D.V. Act. The situation rested in same position for a period till 2019.

4. It was in 2019, the respondent-wife preferred another application under Section 25 of the D.V. Act against the petitioner-husband seeking enhancement of the maintenance allowance. The said application was registered and numbered as Misc. Case no. 54/2019 before the Trial Court. In the proceeding of Misc. Case no. 54/2019, the respondent-wife adduced evidence herself as P.W.1 and the petitioner-husband adduced evidence of two defence witnesses including himself as D.W.1. The Trial Court upon perusal of the evidence/materials brought on record and after hearing the parties, disposed of the application for enhanced maintenance by a Final Order dated 03.01.2025 granting enhanced maintenance allowance @ Rs. 5,000/- per month to the respondent-wife and @ Rs. 4,000/- per month to her son. The petitioner-husband was directed to pay the maintenance allowance from the date of the application.

5. Aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the Final Order dated 03.01.2025, the petitioner- husband carried the matter in appeal to the Appellate Court in Criminal Appeal no. 06[N]/2025. The Appellate Court finding no merit in the appeal, dismissed the criminal appeal thereby, affirmed the Final Order passed by the Trial Court. Hence, the present criminal revision petition.

6. It is the contention of the petitioner that the enhanced maintenance allowance granted to the respondent-wife and her son by the Trial Court and affirmed by the Appellate Court are on the higher side. It is submitt