Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010033602023 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Pet./149/2023 ANWAR HUSSAIN MAZUMDER S/ O LATE ABDUL AHAD MAZUMDER, R/O VILL- RANGAUTI, PART-3, P.O. RATANPUR ROAD, P.S. HAILAKANDI, DIST. HAILAKANDI, ASSAM, PIN-788155 VERSUS RAMECHA BEGUM LASKAR D/O ABDUL MUSABBIR LASKAR R/O VILL- SOYEEDBOND, PART-I, P.O. KALIBARI BAZAR, P.S. ALGAPUR IN THE DISTRICT OF HAILAKANDI, ASSAM, PIN-788150 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S A HUSSAIN, MS. S R MAZARBHUIYA,MS. A BEGUM,MR. A M BARBHUIYA,MR. A K HANNAN,MR. M J QUADIR,MR. D J HALOI Advocate for the Respondent : MR. B U LASKAR, MR. A K HANNAN,MR. M J QUADIR Page No.# 2/3 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA ORDER Date : 13.05.2025 1. Heard Mr. A. M. Barbhuiya, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. M. J. Quadir, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. This is an application filed under Section 482/401 read with Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 3. The petitioner was directed to pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- per month by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Hailakandi in M.R. Case No.140/2017. 4. Thereafter the petitioner approached this Court by filing a Criminal Petition No.358/2021. On 18.08.2022, this Court had remanded the matter to the Trial Court for deciding afresh in the light of the judgment by the Supreme Court in Rajnesh vs. Neha. Thereafter, the Trial Court directed the petitioner to pay Rs.5,000/- per month. 5. The petitioner now submits that he is unable to pay the monthly maintenance because he is presently unemployed. To that effect, Mr. Quadir has relied upon a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court that was delivered in “Anju Garg & another vs. Deepak Kumar Garg reported in 2022 5SCR 909”. Paragraph 13 of the said Judgment is quoted as under. Though it was sought to be submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent, and by the respondent himself that he has no source of income as his party business has now been closed, the Court is neither impressed by nor is ready to accept such submissions. The respondent being an able-bodied, he is Page No.# 3/3 obliged to earn by legitimate means and maintain his wife and the minor child. Having regard to the evidence of the appellant-wife before the Family Court, and having regard to the other evidence on record, the Court has no hesitation in holding that though the respondent had sufficient source of income and was able- bodied, had failed and neglected to maintain the appellants. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances, we deem it proper to grant maintenance allowance of Rs. 10,000/-per month to the appellant-wife, over and above the maintenance allowance of Rs. 6,000/-granted by the Family Court to the appellant no. 2-son. 6. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for both the sides. 7. The petitioner also have an another wife with a child, he maintains that wife and his child. The respondent is the second wife. 8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that an enabled man is duty bound to maintain his wife. Moreover, the learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that Rs.5,000/- per month amounts to Rs.166/- per day and it is difficult for a person to sustain in such a small amount of money. 9. Having considered the entire matter, this Court is of the opinion that Rs.5,000/- per month is not an exorbitant amount for maintenance. 10. Therefore the present Criminal Petition if found to be devoid of merit and stand dismissed accordingly. JUDGE Comparing Assistant