Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010029852021 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Rev.P./60/2021 GOBINDA CH RAY S/O. LT. HARIDAS RAY, VILL. TULANGIA MARKET, NORTH SALMARA, ABHAYAPURI, P.S. ABHAYAPURI, P.S. ABHAYAPURI, DIST. BONGAIGAON, ASSAM, PIN-783384. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REP. BY PP, ASSAM. 2:BOBITA RAY W/O. GOBINDA RAY D/O. DHARMESWAR SHEEL R/O. NAYA DEWANPARA P.S. ABHAYAPURI DIST. BONGAIGAON PIN-783384 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR A A DEWAN, MR S PRODHANI Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR. S BISWAS,MR. S BISWAS (AS LEGAL-AID- COUNSEL FOR R-2),MR. M J BARUAH (R-2),MS B MAJUMDER (R-2) BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH MAZUMDAR ORDER Date : 25-03-2026 Page No.# 2/6 Heard Mr. A.A. Dewan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. Biswas, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2. 2. By the order dated 18.02.2026, this court had recorded that the petitioner be put to notice that in case the amount directed to be deposited was not deposited, this Court may consider dismissal of the revision petition. Time had been sought for on the last date by the learned counsel for the petitioner and today, a submission has been made that despite best efforts, there is no contact with the petitioner. Today, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the matter may be taken up for disposal on merits. 3. Accordingly, this Court has heard Mr. A.A. Dewan, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. S. Biswas, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2 and Ms. S.H. Bora, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that when the respondent No. 2 herein, had initially approached the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class North Salamara, Abhayapuri MR. No. 04/2012 under Section 125 of the CrPC, the learned Trial Court had passed an order for payment of Rs. 2000/- per month for maintenance to the respondent No. 2 herein and Rs. 1000/- per month was maintenance of the child of the Page No.# 3/6 respondent No. 2 herein, until further orders from the date of effect of this order. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that thereafter, the respondent No. 2 had initiated Misc. Case No. 49/2018 A/o MR Case No. 4/2012 under Sections 125 & 127 of the CrPC, praying for enhancement of the maintenance amount. In the said application, the respondent No. 2 had prayed for enhancement of maintenance from Rs. 3000/- in total, to Rs. 10,000/- in total, for maintenance of herself and her child. The learned Trial Court, while deciding the aforesaid Misc. Case No. 49/2018, by order dated 21.11.2020, had enhanced the maintenance amount to Rs. 4000/- per month to the respondent No. 2 herein and Rs. 4000/- per month to her son, after having taken into consideration, the contents of the misc. case and also the written statement filed by the petitioner herein. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the amount of Rs. 8000/- in total required to be paid by the petitioner to the respondent No. 2 and her child is a heavy amount and therefore, requires the interference of this Court. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that there are several judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court which lend embargo on excessive maintenance being granted to estranged the wife and children. Page No.# 4/6 7. Mr. S. Biswas, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2 has submitted that although the petitioner had been paying the maintenance amount in accordance with the order dated 09.09.2013 passed in MR Case No. 4/2012, but on and after the passing of the order dated 21.11.2020 in Misc. Case No. 49/2018, the petitioner has stopped paying any amount of maintenance to the respondent no 2. and her child. The learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 has further submitted that the petitioner has not been able to point out any ground, on which the order dated 21.11.2020, would require the interference of this Court. The learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 has drawn the attention of this Court to the findings of the learned Trial Court that the opposite party in his written statement had admitted the fact regarding receiving a monthly pension amounting to Rs. 25,000/-. 8. The learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 has further submitted that the initial order having been passed in the year 2013 and the enhancement having been brought in the year 2020, the learned Trial Court had also taken into account the escalation of prices of essential commodities and the educational expenses regarding the child of the respondent No. 2. The learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 has submitted that there is no illegality or irregularity in the order dated 21.11.2020, passed by the learned Judicial Page No.# 5/6 Magistrate 1st Class, North Salmara, Abjayapuri in Misc. Case No. 49/2018 and therefore, this present criminal revision petition deserves a dismissal. 9. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor has submitted that there is no material illegality or irregularity in the order and therefore, no interference is called for at this stage. 10. This Court has gone through the pleadings as made available and the only ground taken by the petitioner is alleged non-application of judicial mind by the learned Trial Court, while enhancing the maintenance and of non-appreciation of evidence on record in proper perspective. 11. Having gone through the records available before this Court and having noticed that the petitioner has not paid the maintenance even at the earlier rate on and from 21.11.2020 and further having noticed that despite the orders of this Court, the petitioner has failed to make contact with the counsel engaged, this Court is of the opinion that this criminal revision petition had been initiated only with the intention to delay the payment of enhanced maintenance granted by the order dated 21.11.2020. 12. This Court having gone through all the records does not find any ground on which the order of the learned Trial Court can be said to be either illegal or Page No.# 6/6 irregular in any manner whatsoever. Accordingly, this Court does not find any merit in this criminal revision petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. The order dated 21.11.2020 passed by the learned Trial Court in Misc. Case No. 49/2018 shall continue to hold the field unless modified at a later date. JUDGE Comparing Assistant