Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010233752025 2026:GAU-AS:11061 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Rev.P./439/2025 RAFIKUL CHOUDHURY S/O DILNUR ALI R/O VILL- HALDHA, P.O. HALDHA P.S. BAIHATA CHARIALI, PIN- 781121, DIST. KAMRUP, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAMM AND 2 ORS. REP BY THE PP, ASSAM 2:DILNUR ALI S/O LATE RAHANCHA ALI 3:ANOWARA BEGUM W/O DILNUR ALI BOTH ARE RESIDENT OF VILL- HALDHA P.O. HALDHA,P.S. BAIHATA CHARIALI PIN-781121, DIST. KAMRUP, ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR G R A MOTTAQUEE, Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, B KALITA (R-2,3),MR. K DAS (R-2,3),MS. R DEVI (R-2,3),MR. P S BISWAS (R-2,3),MR. MEHUL SHAH (R-2,3),MR. S C BISWAS (R-2,3) BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN ORDER 07.08.2026 Heard Mr. G. R. A. Mottaque, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. Page No.# 2/4 S.H. Bora, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam, appearing for the State respondent No.1, and Mr. P.S. Biswas, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 and 3. 2. This application under Section 438/422 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 the petitioner, namely, Rifikul Choudhury has challenged the order, dated 28.06.2025, passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court No.3, Kamrup (M) Guwahati (Trial Court herein after) in F.C.(Crl.) Case No.03/2025. 3. It is to be noted here that vide impugned order, the learned (Trial Court herein after) in F.C.(Crl.) Case No.03/2025 has directed the petitioner herein to file affidavit of assets and liabilities. 4. Mr. Mottaque, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Opposite party no. 2 and 3 herein, as petitioners, have instituted an application under section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 before the Learned Principal Judge Family Court NO. 3 seeking maintenance @ Rs. 30,000/- per month from the Petitioner. During pendency of the maintenance petition it is also prayed that an interim maintenance @ Rs. 15,000/- per month be paid to the Opposite party No. 2 and 3. In the said petition, the petitioner appeared through his representative on 24.02.2025, and the next date was fixed on 24.03.2025, for filing of the written statement/filing of assets and liabilities affidavit by both the parties/ hearing on interim maintenance. 5. Thereafter on 22.07.2025, the petitioner herein has filed Written Statement and also filed a petition before the learned Court below being petition No. 1215/2025 annexing the BPL Card issued in the name of his mother for dispensing with in filing the Assets and Liabilities affidavit by him in view of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Rajnesh -Vs.- Neha and Anr. reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324. Accordingly the learned court below vide order dated 22.07.2025 has further fixed the case on 26.08.2025 for order on the petition No. 1215/2025 dated 22.07.2025. Thereafter, on 26.08.2025, vide impugned order dated 22.07.2025, the Page No.# 3/4 learned Trial Court had illegally rejected the prayer and being aggrieved the petitioner approached this court by filing the present petition. 6. The learned counsel for the opposite parties however, opposed the petition on the ground that the BPL card was issued in the name of the mother and that the petitioner is a major and living separately and he has means to maintain the opposite parties No.2 and 3, and that the impugned order suffers from no infirmity or illegality, and therefore, it is contended to dismiss the petition. 7. Having heard the submission of learned counsel for both the parties, this Court has carefully gone through the petition and the documents placed on record and also perused the impugned order dated 26.08.2025, passed in F.C. (Crl.) Case No. 03/2025. 8. A careful perusal of the impugned order reveals that the learned Trial Court had rejected the prayer on the ground that the opposite party/petitioner herein, is major and the ration card/BPL card was issued in the name of his mother and his mother i.e. petitioner No.2, inspite of having ration card issued in her name has filed her affidavit of assets and liabilities in the instant case and also on the ground that the petitioner had already procured a copy of the BPL Card in order to prepare his affidavit of assets and liabilities, as prayed by him in petition No. 507/2025. 9. It also appears that the opposite parties have filed their objection, wherein a stand has been taken by them that the petitioner is deliberately misleading and intended to portray himself as financially incapable, whereas the factual position is entirely different. It is also stated that the petitioner is a major, and after acquiring substantial money and assets from his parents, the respondents herein, had forcefully ousted them and thereafter established an independent business in the form of a garment shop, purchased several properties, and has been living and earning separately on his own and inspite of being financially sound and maintaining an economically stable independent household, he is attempting to misuse the Below Page No.# 4/4 Poverty Line (BPL) classification to avoid his legal obligations and to resist disclosure of his actual income. 10. It also appears that the petitioner had filed his reply to the aforesaid objection and denied the averment made in therein and that he is a psychiatric patient and undergoing treatment. 11. This Court has considered the object behind enacting the Section 144 of the BNSS 2023, and also gone through the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajnesh (supra). Admittedly, the petitioner herein is residing separately. He has his own business and income. And also indisputably, he has not been issued any BPL Card by the authority. Moreover, besides being BPL Card holder the respondent No. 2 and 3 have filed their Affidavit of assets and liabilities. And in that view of the matter, this Court afraid the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajnesh (supra) would not come into his assistance. The petitioner cannot be allowed to avoid filing of Affidavit, while no BPL Card was issued in his name. 12. Thus, taking note of the submissions of learned counsel for the both the parties and also in the light of the given factual and legal position, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order dated 26.08.2025 suffers from no infirmity or illegality requiring any interference of this court. 13. Consequently, this petition stands dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. JUDGE Comparing Assistant