Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010006962012 2025:GAU-AS:14509 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Rev.P./348/2012 MD.IQBAL AHMED S/O LT. HABIBUDDIN AHMED R/O AHMED BILDING, FANCY BAZAR, GHY- 1, P.S. PANBAZAR, DIST. KAMRUP M, ASSAM, VERSUS SYEDA ANU AHMED W/O MD IQBAL AHMED A R/O BELTOLA BONGAON, COLLEGE ROAD, BASISTHA CHARIALI, P.S. BASISTHA, DIST. KAMRUP M, ASSAM, Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.Z KHALID, MR.A KHALEQUE Advocate for the Respondent : MS.S ROY, MS.S MAHANTA,MR.T K MISRA,MR.M MAHANTA Page No.# 2/6 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR ORDER Date : 28.10.2025 Heard Mr. M. H. Ali, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of Mr. A. Khaleque, learned counsel for the petitioner. None appears for the respondent on call. 2. The present revision petition has been instituted assailing the order dated 29.05.2012, passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Guwahati, in F.C.(Crl).No.576/09, awarding maintenance to the respondent, herein, and her child. The respondent, herein, had approached the Principal Judge, Family Court, Guwahati, by way of instituting an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C., praying for maintenance for her and her minor child. The said application was registered as F.C.(Crl).No.576/09. The Family Court upon perusing the evidences coming on record was pleased, vide Judgment dated 29.05.2012, to allow the prayer of the respondent, herein, for being awarded maintenance. The learned Family Court awarded an amount of Rs.3000/-(Rupees three thousand) only, to the respondent, herein, and a further amount of Rs.3000/-(Rupees three thousand) to her minor child. Being aggrieved the petitioner has instituted the present proceedings. Page No.# 3/6 It is to be noted that this Court while entertaining the present application was pleased vide order dated 31.08.2012, to direct the petitioner, herein, to pay to the respondent an amount of Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand) till the disposal of the present revision petition. 3. The learned Family Court upon perusing the evidences coming on record had drawn the following conclusions ; “In view of the above discussions, I am of the opinion that as the petitioner is the legally married wife of the opposite party and the child was born out of their wedlock it is the bounden duty of the opposite party to maintain them. Regarding quantum of maintenance according to the petitioner the opposite party has a big market at Fancy bazaar having sufficient income. On the other hand, the opposite party denied the fact that he is a businessman. But in the written statement the opposite party stated that he paid Rs. 40,000/- for the purpose of operation of his wife. It transpires that he has money to bear the expenditure of his wife and child. Apart from that ‘means’ does not signify only visible means. If one is healthy and able bodied he must be held to have means to support his wife. A person can not avoid his liability U/S 125 CrPC, merely on the ground that he has no tangible real property or income. If he is otherwise able bodied and healthy and had capacity to earn. The presumption should be that such an Page No.# 4/6 able bodied healthy person is possessed of sufficient means and it for him to show that by accident, disease or the conditions of labour market or otherwise he is not capable of earning anything. In the instant case, the opposite party has not shown any ground that he is not capable of earning anything due to any accident or disease. Considering all such matters, it can be said that the opposite party has capacity to maintain his wife and child”. 4. Basing on the said conclusions drawn, the learned Family Court had directed for payment of maintenance as under ; “In the result the petition filed by the petitioner U/S 125 CrPC is allowed. The opposite party Md. Iqbal Ahmed is directed to pay Rs.3000/-(Rupees three thousand) each p.m to the petitioner and her child (Total Rs.6000/- p.m) as their maintenance allowance from the day of the passing of the order i.e. from today (29.05.2012).” 5. This Court has perused the conclusions drawn by the learned Family Court in the light of the evidences coming on record before it. This Court finds that the petitioner, herein, had not disputed the solemnization of his marriage with the respondent, herein, and further the paternity of the child born out of such wedlock was also not disputed. Although it is brought on record that the respondent, herein, is staying away from her matrimonial house, the evidences coming on Page No.# 5/6 record justifies such action taken by the respondent, herein. 6. The Family Court basing on the evidences coming on record had found that the petitioner, herein, had means to provide for the maintenance for his wife i.e. the respondent, herein, and his child. The said conclusions drawn by the learned Family Court has not been disputed by the petitioner. 7. In view of the above position, this Court is of the considered view that the conclusions drawn and maintenance granted by the learned Family Court, would not call for any interference. Accordingly, the petitioner, herein, is directed to pay to the respondent, maintenance in terms of the directions passed by the learned Family Court vide the Judgment dated 29.05.2012. 8. The interim directions passed by this Court vide order dated 31.08.2012, directing for payment of Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand), as maintenance by the petitioner to the respondent, herein, stands vacated. 9. Petitioner shall pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.6000/- (Rupees six thousand) w.e.f. the date of Judgment of the learned Family Court i.e. with effect from 29.05.2012. The arrears working out would be paid to the respondent by the petitioner within a period of 3(three) months from today, and thereafter shall continue to pay the said amount regularly. Page No.# 6/6 10. With the above observations and directions, the present Criminal Revision Petition stands disposed of. 11. Send down the records of the case to the Trial Court along with a copy of this order for information and necessary action. JUDGE Comparing Assistant