Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010187432025 2025:GAU-AS:17521 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Rev.P./344/2025 MRINAL DEKA SON OF SHRI UMAKANTA DEKA RESIDENT OF VILL- HARIPUR, BHAWANIPUR, P.O. BHAWANIPUR, PIN- 781301, P.S. PATHSALA, DIST. BAJALI, ASSAM. VERSUS GINIMA DAS D/O SHRI CHITARANJAN DAS R/O VILL- PUB HATI P.O. SUNDARIDIYA, PIN-781301. PS. BARPETA, DIST. BARPETA, ASSAM. Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. P BORDOLOI, MR D BHUYAN Advocate for the Respondent : MR. SARFRAZ NAWAZ, AMICUS CURIAE , BEFORE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA O R D E R Date : 17.12.2025. Heard Mr. P. Bordoloi, learned counsel for the petitioner husband. Also heard Mr. S. Nawaz, learned Amicus Curiae appearing on behalf of the respondent wife. This is an application under Section 438 read with Section 442 of the BNSS, Page No.# 2/5 2023, challenging the final order dated 30.07.2025, passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Barpeta in F.C. (Crl.) Case No.20/2024, directing the petitioner to pay maintenance @ Rs.7,000/- (Rupees seven thousands) only per month to the respondent from the date of filing of the said petition and also further directed to pay Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousands) only as cost of the proceeding to the respondent. It is contended by Mr. P. Bordoloi, learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Barpeta had passed the order without considering the affidavit submitted by the petitioner on assets and liabilities and the evidence adduced by him. From the order, it reveals that it was passed basically considering the affidavit on assets and liabilities filed by the respondent and only considering her evidence. He further submitted that the learned Family Court did not consider the assets and liabilities of the present petitioner and his evidence at the time of passing the order, though it was observed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rajnesh vs. Neha, reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324, wherein it was directed to consider the maintenance amount only on the basis of the evidence as well as assets and liabilities of both the parties. On the other hand, Mr. S. Nawaz, the learned Amicus Curiae for the respondent wife submitted in this regard that in the order passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Barpeta has only discussed about the assets and liabilities, furnished by the present respondent. However, the marriage between the parties is not disputed and it is also admitted that the respondent has no source of income of her own. More so, the order was passed considering the source of Page No.# 3/5 income of the second party, as stated by the respondent in her evidence as well as the standard of leaving. However, he submitted that though it is case of the respondent that he earns Rs.1,35,000/-but the Court only gave a nominal amount towards maintenance @ Rs.7,000/- per month and it the order was not passed in accordance with the submission or on the basis of the assets and liabilities of the respondent, wherein it was claimed that he earns Rs.1,35,000/- from his grocery shop and from the package drinking water industry as well as from the rented premises. Accordingly, Mr. Nawaz submitted that the order of maintenance @ Rs.7,000/- per month is justified amount and there is no need of any interference by this Court, in the impugned final order dated 30.07.2025, passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Barpeta in F.C. (Crl.) Case No.20/2024. Hearing the submission made by the learned counsel for both sides and on perusal of the case record as well as the final order dated 30.07.2025, passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Barpeta it is seen that the marriage is not disputed and it is also not disputed that the respondent wife has no source of income of her own and at present, she is totally dependent on her parents. Further, the respondent wife also brought in her evidence as well as through affidavit on assets and liabilities that the petitioner husband is a businessman by profession and has several businesses like packaged drinking water industry, tent house, grocery shop in the name and style Padumi Grocery Shop, one tent house namely Padumi Verities and has also some rental premises from which, he earns Rs.1,35,000/-. Thus, she not only claimed that he is a businessman but also name the business establishment of the petitioner, claiming that he earns Rs.1,35,000/- per month. Page No.# 4/5 It is a fact that the petitioner also filed his assets and liabilities, wherein he claimed that he has no source of income of his own and he has no business establishment, as claimed by the respondent and he just works as an employee under his father who runs a grocery shop. He claims that he earns only Rs.10,000/- per month, as an employee under his father who is running a grocery shop. But it is hard to believe that a person will be paid only Rs.10,000/- per month by his own father who is running a grocery shop. That apart, it is also seen that the second party produced no document to substantiate his plea that he is working as an employee in the grocery shop of his father, earning only Rs.10,000/- per month. On the other hand, the discussions made by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Barpeta as well as from the evidence adduced by the respondent, it is seen that the respondent specifically in her evidence as well as in her affidavit- in-opposition on the assets and liabilities, brought the materials on record that her husband/petitioner is a businessman by profession and several business establishments, which are basically running in the name of Padumi Grocery Shop and Padumi Verities but this plea of the respondent wife could not be rebutted by the petitioner. Further, it is rightly submitted by Mr. S. Nawaz, the learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the respondent that it is the claim of the respondent that the petitioner earns around Rs.1,35,000/- per month from his business establishments as well as from his rented premises but, the learned Family Court had passed the order, directing the petitioner to pay only Rs.7,000/- Page No.# 5/5 (Rupees seven thousands) per month, which can be considered to be a very naminal amount. Thus it is seen that the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Barpeta had considered the assets and liabilities furnished by both the parties and at the same time, considering all the circumstances of the case and the plea of the petitioner, had passed the reasonable and justified amount towards maintenance to the respondent wife. It is also seen that the assets and liabilities were furnished by both the parties which were considered as well as the plea taken by the petitioner is also considered by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Barpeta. Considering all these aspects of the case, this Court is of the opinion that there is no need of any interference in the final order dated 30.07.2025, passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Barpeta and accordingly, the present petition stands dismissed. In terms of above, this revision petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant