Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010034542024 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Rev.P./264/2024 DR. SURYA KUMAR SAIKIA S/O LATE GAJEN SAIKIA, R/O TOWN-USHA NAGAR, P.O.-KUMAR CHUBURI, P.S.-TEZPUR, DIST.-SONITPUR, ASSAM, PIN-784001. VERSUS SMTI. DWIPANNITA KALITA W/O DR. SURYA KUMAR SAIKIA AND D/O SRI SUREN KALITA PERMANENT R/O TOWN-USHA NAGAR, P.O.-KUMAR CHUBURI, P.S.- TEZPUR, DIST.-SONITPUR, ASSAM, PIN-784001 AND ALSO R/O HOUSE NO. 17, SEWALI PATH, P.O.AND P.S.-HATIGAON, GUWAHATI-781038, DIST.- KAMRUP (M), ASSAM. PRESENT ADDRESS - C/O SRI SUREN KALITA, VILL-RAHADHAR, BIRKOLA, P.O. AND P.S.-PATHSALA, DIST.-NALBARI AND ALSO C/O MR. K. BARMAN, HOUSE NO.84/A, BIDYA MANDIR PATH, HATIGAON, P.O. AND P.S.-HATIGAON, GUWAHATI-781038, DIST.-KAMRUP (M), ASSAM. Advocate for the Petitioner : MRS K M SAIKIA, Advocate for the Respondent : MS. F HUSAIN, MR S M ABDULLAH P,MD IMRAN,MS F HUSSAIN,MD R ISLAM BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER Date : 04.03.2025 1. Heard Mr. P. Bora, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. F. Husain, learned counsel for the respondent. Page No.# 2/6 2. This application under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as well as Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Dr. Surya Kumar Saikia, impugning the order dated 02.08.2023, passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court No. II, Kamrup(M), in F.C. (Crl.) Case No. 614/2019, whereby the petitioner was directed to pay monthly maintenance allowance of Rs.20,000/- per month to the respondent and Rs.10,000/- per month for her son (total Rs.30,000/- per month). 3. The facts relevant for consideration of the instant revision petition, in brief, are that the petitioner and respondent are husband and wife in relationship. They were married on 24.06.2008 as per Hindu rites and a male child was also born out of the said wedlock. However, matrimonial dispute arose between both of them and the respondent was driven out by the petitioner of her matrimonial home. Certain other allegations were also levelled against the present petitioner by the respondent wife. It was alleged that the petitioner is a habitual drinker and is indulging in adultery. The respondent thereafter filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the Court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court No. II, Kamrup(M) praying for monthly maintenance allowance from the present petitioner. The said application was registered as F.C. (Crl.) Case No. 614/2019. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner appeared before the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court No. II, Kamrup(M) in the said case on 10.05.2022 but thereafter he could not appear in the aforesaid proceedings as during COVID-19 period he had to go to Bihar for his livelihood as he was engaged in a private job in a company i.e., Sonagold Agrochem Private Limited. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted Page No.# 3/6 that thereafter the petitioner was engaged in another company i.e., Hencok Agrovet Private Limited where he was getting an amount of Rs.50,000/- per month. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as the petitioner had to remain away from Guwahati, he could not appear before the Court of learned Principal Judge,Family Court No. II, Kamrup(M) at Guwahati and in the meanwhile, the aforesaid case i.e., F.C. (Crl.) Case No. 614/2019 was fixed for ex-parte hearing. Thereafter, by the impugned order dated 02.08.2023, the Trial Court directed the petitioner to pay the maintenance allowance to the respondent and her minor son as already discussed in the foregoing paragraphs. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Trial Court without considering the requirement of the affidavit of assets and liabilities, which is required to be considered before directing the petitioner to pay maintenance allowance to the respondent as provided in the guidelines of the Apex Court in the case of “Rajnesh Vs. Neha and Anr.” reported in“(2021) 2 SCC 324”had erroneously disposed of the aforesaid proceeding ex-parte against the present petitioner. He further submits that the petitioner was prevented from appearing before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court in the aforesaid proceeding due to bona fidereasons.The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted thatthe impugned judgment may be set aside and the petitioner may be given an opportunity to submit his affidavit of assets and liabilities in pursuant to the directions of the Apex Court in Rajnesh Vs. Neha (supra) for the ends of justice. 7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently opposed the setting aside of the ex-parte order which is impugned in this revision petition. She has submitted that the petitioner had appeared Page No.# 4/6 before the Family Court on 10.05.2022 when the matter was fixed for conciliation before the counsellor of the Family Court No. II, Kamrup(M), Guwahati. Hence, she submits that the petitioner was aware about the pendency of the proceeding and he willfully neglected in appearing before the said court. 8. The learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the petitioner was directed even by this Court by order dated 30.09.2024 to pay the awarded monthly maintenance allowance to the respondent and her minor son in pursuant to the order which has been impugned in this revision petition till the pendency of this revision petition, however, the petitioner has defaulted in paying the said amount and, therefore, she submits that no indulgence should be granted to the petitioner. She has further submitted that the outstanding due from the petitioner has become to the extent of Rs.19 Lakhs. Whereas, the learned counsel for the petitioner has also disputed the quantum of the due arrear maintenance allowance. 9. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both the sides and have perused the materials available on record. 10. The revisional powers of the High Court are intended to be used to decide all questions as to the correctness, legality or propriety of finding recorded by any inferior Criminal Court. The said power has to be exercised in case of grave failure or miscarriage of justice arising out of erroneous or defective order of the Court against which revision has been preferred. 11. In the instant case, the main plea of the petitioner is that he could not appear before the Court of the learned Principal Judge, Family Court No. II, Kamrup(M) due to COVID-19 pandemic as he had to go out of the State for Page No.# 5/6 livelihood. However, on perusal of the scanned copy of the records of F.C. (Crl.) Case No. 614/2019, which was requisitioned in connection with this case, it appears that notice issued to the opposite party, i.e., the present petitioner, in the said case, was duly served and an order to that effect was passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court No. II, Kamrup(M) on 21.11.2019 itself. 12. Though, the Trial Court fixed the matter for ex-parte hearing, however, again on 21.02.2022, fresh notices were issued to the petitioner in view of the lockdown due to COVID-19 pandemic. It also appears from record that in pursuant to the notice issued to the present petitioner, he appeared before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court No. II, Kamrup(M), in the aforesaid case on 10.05.2022, on which date the matter was referred to the counsellor for exploring the possibility of settlement between the parties. However, before the counsellor, both parties appeared on 27.06.2022 only and thereafter several dates were fixed for counselling, only the respondent appeared before the counsellor and the present petitioner did not appear. Neither any cause was shown for his absence before the counsellor. Thereafter, the matter was again referred to the Principal Judge, Family Court No. II, Kamrup(M) on 27.01.2023. However, the petitioner defaulted there also without any steps. 13. Considering the repeated absence of the petitioner before the Court in the aforesaid proceeding, the learned Principal Judge, Family Court No. II, Kamrup(M), Guwahati fixed the matter for ex-parte hearing on 02.06.2023. Ultimately, the learned Principal Judge, Family Court No. II, Kamrup(M) passed the impugned order after considering the evidence on record as well as the affidavit of assets and liabilities filed by the respondent. 14. In the instant case, as the petitioner himself defaulted from appearing before the Family Court in spite of knowing about the pendency of the matter Page No.# 6/6 and in spite of appearing before the said Court on a couple of occasions. This Court does not find any irregularity or illegality in the impugned order as it appears that he willfully defaulted in appearing before the said Court. It also appears that sufficient opportunity was granted to the present petitioner. 15. As regards not considering the affidavit of assets and liabilities by the present petitioner, the Family Court was not at fault as it has considered the affidavit of assets and liabilities filed by the respondent and the petitioner himself defaulted in appearing before the Court without any just excuse. 16. The power of revisional jurisdiction may be exercised by this Court for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality and regularity of any proceeding or an order made by an inferior Court. The object of said provision is to set right a patent, defect or error of jurisdiction or law. It is a well accepted norm that the revisional jurisdiction of the higher court is a very limited one and cannot be exercised in a routine manner. In the instant case, this court finds no palpable error, illegality or irregularity in the impugned order. 17. For the above stated reasons, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, finds no merit in the present revision. 18. Revision petition is accordingly dismissed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant