Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Gau) 774

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT, (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA, J.
Sofikul Islam @ Sofiqul Islam, S/o. Abar Uddin Ahmed – Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Assam, Represented By The Public Prosecutor, Assam And Anr. – Respondents
Crl.Rev.P./307 of 2024
Decided On : 08-05-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. B.C. Das, Mr. S.H. Rahman.
for the Respondents: PP, Assam, Mr N.Z. Choudhury, Mr N.A. Mazarbhuiya, Mr. A.R. Bhuyan, Mr. P. Borthakur.

Maintenance must be determined based on verifiable evidence of income and existing financial liabilities. Courts are legally obligated to consider and adjust maintenance awards against existing payments from concurrent legal proceedings to ensure proportionality and prevent the ordering of redundant or excessive sums.

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 125 - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 106 - Maintenance - Quantum of maintenance - Maintenance awarded by trial court without evidentiary support - Petitioner claimed monthly income significantly lower than assessed amount - Lower court failed to adjust maintenance amounts previously awarded under separate domestic protective legislation - Appellate court emphasized necessity of linking maintenance amounts to actual, proven income and existing financial liabilities - Failure to adjust concurrent maintenance awards constitutes legal error. (Paras 11, 14, 16, 19, 21)

(B) Appellate Jurisdiction - Burden of Proof - Excessive reliance on unverified allegations regarding income is impermissible - Courts must not shift burden of proof to the defendant to disprove speculative earnings without a foundational evidentiary basis - Need for objective assessment of financial capacity while considering all dependents. (Paras 17, 20)

Facts of the case:
A maintenance petition was filed by the respondent against the petitioner under statutory provisions for conjugal and child support. The trial court awarded a monthly maintenance sum based on an estimation of the petitioner's income, treating the petitioner's alleged earnings as half of what the respondent stipulated, despite a lack of documentary evidence. The petitioner challenged this order, citing both an inaccurate assessment of his income and the court's failure to adjust this amount against maintenance already awarded in parallel proceedings under a separate welfare act.

Findings of Court:
The court determined that the trial magistrate exceeded its jurisdiction by adopting an arbitrary formula to calculate income. It was held that where a party fails to provide evidence of an adversary's income, the court cannot rely on conjecture or unsubstantiated claims. Furthermore, failure to adjust the new maintenance award against existing payments ordered in other proceedings violates the principle of preventing double recovery.

Issues: The main issues were whether the trial court correctly assessed the petitioner's monthly income and whether it was obligated to adjust the awarded maintenance against pre-existing orders from other litigation.

Ratio Decidendi: Maintenance amounts must be determined by consistent and documented evidence of income and verified liabilities. Courts are mandated to reconcile multiple maintenance orders to ensure the total financial burden is proportionate and prevents unjust enrichment, ensuring that the final amount is grounded in reality rather than speculation.

Result: Revision allowed; impugned order modified.

Table of Content
1. court jurisdiction in maintenance revision proceedings. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
2. trial court process for establishing maintenance eligibility. (Para 7 , 8 , 9)
3. challenge regarding income assessment and dv act adjustment. (Para 10 , 11)
4. evidentiary requirements and burden of proving spousal income. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18)
5. adjusting section 125 maintenance with dv act orders. (Para 19 , 20 , 21)
6. final modification of quantum and concluding maintenance orders. (Para 22 , 23 , 24)

JUDGMENT :

Sanjeev Kumar Sharma, J.

Heard Mr. B C Das, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. A R Bhuyan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2 and Mr. P Borthakur, learned Addl. PP for the State respondents.

2. This revision is directed against the impugned order dated 26.06.2024 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Goalpara in Case No. MCR-116/2021, directing the petitioner/2^nd party to pay an amount of Rs. 12,000/- (Rupees Twelve Thousand) only, per month towards maintenance of the 1^st party/respondent and Rs. 8,000/- (Rupees Eight Thousand) only per month for the maintenance of her daughter (till she attains majority) in total Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) only per month, from the date of institution of the proceeding.

3. A proceeding under section 125 CRPC was instituted by the present respondent/wife (1^st party) against the present petitioner/husband (2^nd party) claiming maintenance for herself and the minor child born out of their marriage.

4. The facts of the case may be discussed. The parties are referred to as 1^st party (wife) and 2^nd party (husband) hereinafter.

5. The case of the 1^st party is that the 1^st party entered into marriage with the 2^nd party socially as per Muslim Shariyat on 22.03.2013. After marriage, the 1^st party started her conjugal life with the 2^nd party at the house of the 2^nd which continued party for about 10 months and thereafter at Krishnai, Jyotinagar for about 15 months and during conjugal life they were blessed with a one female child namely Fatima Yasmin Yalina Begum on 02.01.2016. However after 2 years, 2^nd party demanded Rs 10,00,000/- from the 1^st party and on refused to meet the said demand, the 2^nd party started torturing mentally and physically torturing the 1^st party and on April, 2017 the 2^nd party drove the 1^st party out of her matrimonial house along with her minor child. Several times, the 1^st party along with her minor child went to the house of 2^nd party to continue her conjugal life with the 2^nd party but the 2^nd party did not allow her to enter into her matrimonial house. Since April, 2017, 1^st party having no alternative took shelter in the house of her own parents. The 2^nd party neither visited her nor provided any maintenance to her and her minor child. The 2^nd party is a businessman, who deals with medicine and has pucca house constructed on his own land and from all sources he earns about Rs.1,50,000/-per month and the 1^st party on the other hand, has no income of her own and has been passing her life at her parental house.

6. Upon perusal of the case record and finding sufficient ground for proceeding against the 2^nd party u/s 125 Cr.P.C., notice was issued to the 2^nd party and the 2^nd party appeared and contested the case by filling written statement wherein he denied all the allegations except the marriage and the birth of their minor child out of the Wedlock

7. The case of the 2^nd party as it appears from the written statement is that he never assaulted the 1^st party and had not demanded anything or Rs. 10,00,000/- from the 1^st party and that the 1^st party used to visited her parental house frequently without his consent and on 16.04.2017 willfully left the house of the 2^nd party and went to her parental house along with minor child. The 2^nd party along with two village elders went to the house of 1^st party to bring back the 1^st party and made several attempts to return back the 1^st party and restore their con