Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010090432026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case : Crl.Pet./313/2026 SRI JITEN DEKA S/O - LATE TARUN DEKA R/O VILL BHITARKHOLA CHANGSARI P.O. DORAKOHORA P.S. CHANGSARI DISTRICT KAMRUP ASSAM PIN 781101 VERSUS SMTI HIMANJALI THAKURIA D/O- SRI GANESH CH. THAKURIA W/O - SRI JITEN DEKA R/O VILLAGE AND P.O. - NAGAON P.S. - BARPETA DISTRICT - BARPETA ASSAM PIN-781311 PRESENTLY STAYING AT HOUSE NO. 5 GROUND FLOOR BYE LANE- 9 LACHIT NAGAR P.O.- ULUBARI P.S. - PALTANBAZAR DIST- KAMRUP(M) PIN- 781007 ------------ Advocate for : MR. D P BORAH Advocate for : appearing for SMTI HIMANJALI THAKURIA BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN ORDER 30.07.2026 Page No.# 2/5 Mr. D. P. Borah, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. T. R. Sarma, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. By this application filed under Section 528 of the BNSS 2023, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 13-08-2025 passed in DV Case No. 84 of 2025 by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup (M), Guwahati. By the said order dated 13-08-2025, the learned Court had directed the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.7000/- as interim maintenance to the respondent. 3. The case of the petitioner is that an application for the Domestic Violence was filed by the sole respondent/wife and during the proceeding and on the order of the court, the affidavit showing asset and liability was filed by the wife of the petitioner but the petitioner had not filed neither the w/s nor affidavit showing asset and liability in connection with the said case. It is noticed that the learned Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup (M) had given a number of opportunities to the petitioner to file the w/s as well as the affidavit showing the asset and liability but he did not file for one reason or the other. 4. It is further noticed that since number of adjournments were given for filing of the said affidavits, the learned court by order dated 13-08-2025 had directed the petitioner/husband to pay an amount of Rs. 7000/- monthly as interim maintenance to the wife. Against that order, the petitioner had filed the instant criminal petition. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was working as a auto driver initially but subsequently, because of various reasons he could not continue his work and as such he had taken other work with other concern and that he was not able to earn properly to sustain himself or to pay any maintenance amount to his wife and his child who is 5 years old. 6. The learned counsel further submits that the respondent i.e. his wife had Page No.# 3/5 taken up a work and is earning around Rs.11,000/- per month. He also submits that the respondent had left the petitioner on her own volition without any reason and as such under section 125 of the CrPC the petitioner is not liable to pay the wife any maintenance. 7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent, Mr. T. R. Sharma submits that the petitioner has the liability to maintain his wife and his minor child and due to his non-appearance and non-filing of the affidavit showing his asset and liability as well as the written statement, the learned Court of Additional CJM, Kamrup (M) had awarded the interim compensation at the rate of Rs. 7,000/- to be paid to his wife. He further submits that as far as employment of the respondent is concerned the same was taken up by her after filing the affidavit showing her asset and liability before the learned Court. He has placed the judgment of the Apex Court passed in Rajnesh versus Neha reported in 2021 (2) SCC 324 wherein the Apex Court had observed that the respondent/husband should file the affidavit of disclosure within a period of four weeks and that the Court taking up the said matter should not grant more than two opportunities for submission of the affidavit of disclosure of asset and liability to the respondent. 8. The Apex Court had further held that if the respondent delays in filing the affidavit and seeks more than two adjournments for the purpose, the Court may exercise the power to strike off the defence of the respondent if the delay is found to be willful and continuous. It is also held by the Apex Court that on failure to file the affidavit within the prescribed time, the Family Court or the respective court may proceed to decide the application for maintenance on the basis of the affidavit filed by the applicant and on pleadings on record. He submits that more than two opportunities rather more than four Page No.# 4/5 opportunities were given to the petitioner to file the affidavit of disclosure but the same was not filed and rightly the learned court of Additional CJM, Kamrup had passed the order dated 13-08-2025. 9. The learned counsel for the respondent further denies that the respondent had on her own volition deserted her husband without any reason. He submits that the FIR was filed by the respondent demonstrating the torture meted out to her by the petitioner. 10. I have heard the counsels and have gone through the records of the case. 11. It is noticed that the respondent/wife has filed her affidavit of disclosure before the learned court of CJM, Kamrup (M) but it is also an admitted fact that the respondent/wife has started working after the said affidavit was filed. It is also noticed that the petitioner was an auto driver and is unable to sustain himself later on and after he stopped driving and that he had taken over another job to survive. 12. For the change in the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds it fit to remand the matter back to the court of learned Additional CJM, Kamrup(M) to re-hear the case afresh on the new facts and circumstances. 13. It is therefore directed that the respondent/wife should file an affidavit of disclosure showing her assets and liabilities after she had taken up the work. It is further directed that the petitioner/husband should file the affidavit of disclosure within one month from the date of this order before the CJM, Kamrup (M) and the said Court thereafter should consider the affidavits and would pass respective order. As far as filing of the written statement is concerned the petitioner is directed to file written statement immediately after filing of the said affidavit of disclosure. 14. As far as the interim maintenance is concerned, this Court in view of the Page No.# 5/5 requirement that the petitioner is mandated to maintain his minor child is directed to pay Rs.3,000/- per month till it is decided by the learned court of Additional CJM, Kamrup (M). Further, the learned court would decide the amount of maintenance to be given to his wife and his children from the date of filing of the application till the date when the respondent/wife had employed herself in some work. Trial court is further directed to continue with the proceeding expeditiously. 15. In view of the same the order 13.08.2025 is modified and this petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant