Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010170322019 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRP(IO)/230/2019 DIPAK BAYAN S/O- LATE GOPI BAYAN, R/O- BARPETADANGARKUCHI, P.S- PATACHARKUCHI, DIST- BARPETA, ASSAM VERSUS JONALI DAS W/O- DIPAK BAYAN, D/O- UMESH DAS, R/O- PATHSAALA, SANKARDEV NAGAR, P.O- PATHSALA, P.S- PATACHARKUCHI, DIST- BARPETA, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. K K BHUYAN, MR. B DEKA,MR. B P CHANGMAI,MS P BARUAH Advocate for the Respondent : , BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA ORDER 09.02.2026 None appears for the parties. 2. It is reflected in the Order dated 06.09.2019 that the petitioner had Page No.# 2/5 undertaken to deposit of an amount of Rs. 5000/- within one week. However, the Court has not been apprised about such deposit has been made. 3. This instant civil revision petition has been preferred against the order dated 29.03.2019 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Bajali at Pathsala in Misc. Case No. 5/2018 arising out of TS(M) No. 66/2013 challenging the award of interim maintenance of an amount of Rs.4000/- per month to the respondent’s wife u/s 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. 4. The brief facts of the case are that the marriage between the petitioner/present respondent and the opposite party/present petitioner, Sri Dipak Bayan was solemnized on 15.04.2013 as per Hindu Rites and Rituals and they started their conjugal life at the house of opposite party. The opposite party is an employee of Executive Engineer (PWD) Roads Department, Barpeta. Soon after the marriage, the petitioner was subjected to physical and mental torture by the opposite party and after two months of the marriage, the opposite party forcefully drove the petitioner from his house and thereafter he never tried to contact the petitioner nor tried to take back to her matrimonial house, rather, he threatened the petitioner to face dire consequence if she tried to return back to his house and finding no alternative she had taken shelter in her parent house. The opposite party being the employee of Executive Engineer (PWD) Roads Department, Barpeta earned Rs. 40,000/- per month as his salary but he did not provide any financial assistance though she was legally married wife of the opposite party. The petitioner further stated that she had no income source and she had been facing from financial hardship and unable to maintain herself and therefore prays before this Court to provide monthly pendent-lite of Page No.# 3/5 Rs. 15,000/- and Rs. 10,000/- as expenses of the proceeding. 5. As against the above, the opposite party/petitioner herein, Sri Dipak Bayan filed his written objection, stating that the entire case is false, fabricated and based upon concocted story. He stated that he did not torture the petitioner mentally or physically at any point of time after the marriage rather the petitioner herself voluntarily left his house and stayed in the house of her parents without informing him as well as his family members. Though he tried to take back her several times and wanted to start their married life peacefully but the petitioner refused to come back to his house. 6. The opposite party further stated that his first wife Jayshree Bayan died on 10.03.2011 living behind one female child namely Manashi Bayan aged about 13 years and one male child namely, Bijay Deep Bayan aged about 6 years. 7. Thereafter he married the petitioner/respondent herein Smti Jonali Das so that he could start his life again and the petitioner would take care their children. But the petitioner after the marriage refused to take care of the minor children of opposite party and started mentally and physically harassed them. 8. After 10 days of the marriage the petitioner went to her parents house with her brother without informing him and at the request of the petitioner came back to his house after 18 days, but she again started harassed the children of the opposite party. On 17.07.2012 the brother of the petitioner Drubajyoti Das and with one relative namely Anup Deuri brought the petitioner along with all the Stridhana properties and left his house. On the same day the Page No.# 4/5 petitioner and the opposite party executed a Deed of Agreement in presence of witnesses and upon that agreement the petitioner side clearly stated that she willfully and upon her consent was not interested to continue her conjugal life with the opposite party and left along with all her stridhana properties. It is also stated in the agreement that she would not claim any maintenance for permanent alimony in future from the opposite party. The opposite party also stated that entire family burden lies upon him and with his poor income he had to maintain his family and take care of the children and upon the above premises, prays to reject the petition of the petitioner. 9. The learned Court below having regard to the provision of Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and also having regard to the fact that the petitioner was at that time working as Employee of Executive Engineer, PWD(Roads) Department with a monthly salary of Rs. 40,000/- allowed a sum of Rs. 4000/- per month as interim maintenance till disposal of the divorce proceedings in Title Suit(M) No. 66/2013. 10. Since the passing of the order, another 6 years have passed and in the meantime, the salary of the petitioner would also have increased due to pay revision. 11. Having perused the grounds stated in the instant petition and the reasons reflected in the impugned order for grant of the maintenance award amount of Rs. 4000/- per month, I do not find any infirmity therein calling for interference by this Court in the instant Civil Revision Petition. Page No.# 5/5 12. Considering the above, the petition stands dismissed. No cost. JUDGE Comparing Assistant