Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010030132021 2025:GAU-AS:3257 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Pet./112/2021 LABLU DAS S/O LATE SRIKANT DAS, R/O WEST PANI SAGAR, P.S.-PANI SAGAR, DIST- NORTH TRIPURA, DHARMANAGAR, TRIPURA VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM 2:SMTI PURABI DAS W/O SRI LABLU DAS C/O SRI RANJIT DAS MALIGAON COLLEGE GATE P.S.-JALUKBARI DIST-KAMRUP ASSAM PIN-78101 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR M J QUADIR, MR. K MIRA Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR B K SARMA (R-2),MR. K K BHUYAN (R-2),MR. B DEKA (R-2),S AZIZ (R-2) Page No.# 2/5 BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER 24.03.2025 Heard Mr. M. J. Quadir, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K. Bhaisya, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent No.1 and Mr. K. Dev, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. B. Deka, learned counsel for the respondent No.2. 2. This application is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 praying for recalling the D.W./warrant of arrest issued against the petitioner in Ex.(Crl) Case No. 4/2019 arising out of F.C.(Crl) Case No. 390/2009 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Kamrup, Guwahati on 25.01.2021. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Quadir, that the present respondent is the second wife of the petitioner. She filed a case before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Kamrup, praying for maintenance, and an ex-parte order was passed on 21.09.2011, directing the petitioner to pay Rs. 4,000/- (Rupees four thousand) per month towards the maintenance of respondent No. 2 and Rs. 1,500/- (Rupees one thousand five hundred) each to both the daughters, amounting to a total of Rs. 7,000/- (Rupees seven thousand) per month. As the case was decided ex-parte, the petitioner, who was working in Kuwait at the time to earn his livelihood, was unable to participate in the proceedings. Furthermore, learned counsel submitted that prior to the filing of the maintenance case, respondent No. 2 had also lodged a case under Sections 498A/494/34 of the IPC against the petitioner Page No.# 3/5 and his family members. However, in 2013, the petitioner and his family members were acquitted in that case. After the maintenance order was passed, the respondent returned to her matrimonial home and lived with the petitioner from 2012 to 2018. Thereafter, she left her matrimonial home and filed an execution petition. However, she did not file for the execution of any maintenance allowance for the period between 2012 to 2018. 4. He further submitted that during her stay with the petitioner, he paid her more than Rs. 12,00,000/- (Rupees twelve lakhs), which was initially deposited into her account through his mother and later deposited directly into her account. On 27.09.2018, she filed an execution petition claiming arrears of maintenance. Without considering the relevant aspects of the case, the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, issued a DW against the petitioner. Consequently, the petitioner approached this Court seeking recall of the NBWA/DW. By order dated 05.04.2019, the NBWA was recalled, and the petitioner was directed to appear before the learned Trial Court with an appropriate application. 5. In compliance, the petitioner filed an application on 12.04.2019, praying for the recall of the NBWA and the dismissal of the maintenance case, to which the respondent filed a written objection. Subsequently, on 07.01.2020, the petitioner filed another application seeking a refund of the excess amount allegedly paid to the respondent No.2. The respondent No.2 objected to this as well. However, without disposing of the petitions dated 12.04.2019 and 07.01.2020, the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Kamrup, passed an order on 25.01.2021, issuing a DW/warrant against the petitioner on the grounds that he had violated the order of this Court dated 21.09.2011. Aggrieved by this order, the present petition has been filed. 6. On the other hand, Mr. Dev, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 has Page No.# 4/5 submitted that the petitioner has intentionally avoiding to pay the maintenance allowance as well as the arrears. It was also contended that the alleged payment of Rs. 10,11,151/- (Rupees ten lakhs eleven thousand one hundred fifty-one) only has no connection with the maintenance payments. Furthermore, the respondent No.2 denied the petitioner’s claim that she lived with him from 2012 to 2018. According to her, the petitioner did not pay her any maintenance during that period, resulting in significant arrears, and he continues to evade payment. 7. Upon considering the circumstances of the case, it is seen that the marriage between the parties and the paternity of the children are not disputed. However, the ex-parte maintenance order was passed in 2011. The petitioner claims that the respondent lived with him from 2012 to 2018 and, therefore, did not seek execution of the maintenance order for that period. However, the respondent No.2 denies this and asserts that she never lived with the petitioner during that time. It is a fact that she did not claim maintenance during those years and only filed for execution in 2018. There is no proper explanation for why she waited for six years to file for execution despite the maintenance order being passed in 2011. Furthermore, it is observed that after this Court's order, the petitioner approached the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Kamrup, by filing two applications, as mentioned above, and the respondent No.2 also filed written objections. However, these petitions remain undisposed of, and the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Kamrup, issued a DW/warrant against the petitioner on 25.01.2021. At the same time, it is also an admitted fact that the petitioner has not paid any maintenance to respondent No. 2 and her daughters, although he claims to have paid over Rs. 12,00,000/- (Rupees twelve lakhs) between 2012 and 2018. Page No.# 5/5 8. In view of the above, I find that the learned Trial Court must hear the petition and decide the issue of maintenance for the period from 2012 to 2018 before passing a necessary order in this regard. However, considering all aspects of the case, the NBWA/DW issued against the petitioner is hereby recalled. Both parties are directed to appear before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Kamrup, on or before 23.04.2025, where the Court shall hear the petitions mentioned above and pass the necessary order (s) accordingly. 9. The petitioner is directed to continue paying the maintenance allowance as directed till the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Kamrup, passes an order on the arrear maintenance. 10. The stay granted by this Court vide order dated 19.02.2021 is hereby stands vacated. 11. With the above observations, this petition stands disposed of. 12. A copy of this order shall be sent to the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Kamrup, for necessary action. JUDGE Comparing Assistant