Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010201652024 2025:GAU-AS:816 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Pet./1200/2024 ABDUL KUDDUS SHEIKH S/OLT. AKALU SK. VILL- BARAIBARI PART-IV, P.O. BARAIBARI P.S. GAURIPUR DIST. DHUBRI, ASSAM PIN-783339 PRESENTLY RESIDING AT VILL- HATIDURA (OXIGURI) P.O. SRINAGAR, P.S. TAMARHAT DIST. DHUBRI, ASSAM PIN-783332 VERSUS MAHMUDA KHATUN D/OMD. RAJAB ALI SK VILL BORAIBARI PART-IV, P.O. BARAIBARI P.S. GAURIPUR DIST. DHUBRI, ASSAM PIN-783339 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M HUSSAIN, MR A.K. MOLLAH,MR. R I MONDAL Advocate for the Respondent : MR. M A SHEIKH, MS. F INTAZ,MR. Z H AHMED Page No.# 2/3 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY ORDER 27-01-2025 1. Heard Mr. M. Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M.A. Sheikh, learned counsel for the sole respondent/opposite party. 2. By this criminal petition filed under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023, the petitioner is assailing the impugned order dated 29.09.2022 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Dhubri in F.C.Crl. Case No. 18/2022 whereby the present petitioner was directed to pay an amount of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) per month to the respondent wife and amount of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) each for her three children in total amount of Rs. 16,000/-(Rupees sixteen thousand only) in an application under Section 127(1) CrPC inasmuch as the earlier maintenance award was Rs. 4,500/- (Rupees four thousand five hundred only) in total for the respondent wife and her three children. 3. Though the present petitioner has taken a specific stand that the aforesaid order was an ex-parte order and the petitioner had never received any notice, however, the record reveals that the notice was duly served upon him. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to go into the merit of the case inasmuch as the present petitioner had not opted to contest the case even after receipt of the notice. Hence, this Court in exercising of its revisional power would not like to entertain such a litigant. 4. On merit, it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that three of the children have in the meantime attained majority, therefore, no maintenance award could have been granted to them. 5. This Court is not inclined to go into such factual aspects, however, liberty is given to Page No.# 3/3 the present petitioner to approach the learned Magistrate by filing an appropriate application under Section 127 CrPC to ascertain such claim. 6. With the above observation, this criminal petition stands closed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant