Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010264492024 2026:GAU-AS:12518 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Rev.P./501/2024 ARSUB ALI S/O MONNAS ALI R/O VILL- BETBARI PATHER,P.S. BORBALA P.S. BARPETA, DIST. BARPETA, ASSAM VERSUS LATIFA KHATUN D/O SAHAR ALI R/O VIL- NAMBERPARA PART-3, P.O. NAMBERPARA, P.S. ABHAYAPURI, DIST. BONGAIGAON, ASSAM PIN-783392 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. J AHMED, MR N ZAMAN Advocate for the Respondent : MR. A MANNAF , BEFORE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA O R D E R Date : 31.08.2026. Heard Mr. J. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner/ second party. Also heard Mr. A. Mannaf, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/first party. Page No.# 2/4 This is an application under Section 438 read with Section 442 of the BNSS, 2023 for setting aside and quashing of the impugned order dated 09.09.2024, passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court at Barpeta in F.C. (Crl.) Case No.654/2022, granting Rs. 5,000/- per month to the respondent/first party and Rs. 2,500/- per month to her minor child, in total Rs.7,500/- per month towards maintenance of respondent/first party and her minor daughter. It is submitted by Mr. Ahmed, the learned counsel for the petitioner/second party that the petitioner has no source of income to provide maintenance @ Rs. 7,500/- per month, as per the direction of the learned Principal Judge, Family Court at Barpeta. He further submitted that with some false and concocted allegations, the respondent/first party had lodged the case against the present petitioner/second party and in spite of repeated request, the respondent/first party did not return back to her matrimonial home and she willfully deserted the petitioner /second party and as such, she is not entitled for any maintenance. He further submitted that the marriage between the parties and the paternity of the child is not disputed. Furthermore, the petitioner is ready to provide some maintenance to the respondent/first party and her child and accordingly, prayed for reduction of the maintenance allowance to some extent. The learned counsel further submitted that as per the direction of this Court, the petitioner/second party could not produce any report as to whether he is a defaulter in the Court of the learned Principal Judge, Family Court at Barpeta in regards to payment of maintenance by him, as the learned counsel could not make any contact with the respondent/first party, in spite of his best effort. Per contra, Mr. A. Mannaf, the learned counsel for the respondent/first party submitted that the respondent/first party had to left her matrimonial home for Page No.# 3/4 repeated mental and physical torture, which has already been described in her petition as well as while adducing her evidence in the learned Family Court and considering her evidence, the order of maintenance was passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court at Barpeta. Moreover, the maintenance allowance, which has been awarded is also a reasonable one and hence, the question of reducing the same also does not arise. The learned counsel further submitted that since the passing of the order, the petitioner/second party is defaulting in payment and after the institution of the present revision petition, this Court directed for payment of Rs. 3,000/- per month as interim maintenance but that is also not paid by the petitioner/second party and accordingly, there is an arrear of maintenance allowance is more than Rs. 2 lacs, at present, for which the respondent/first party is in financial hardship, as she is not in a position to maintain herself and her minor school going daughter without any maintenance. The respondent/first party has no source of income and completely dependent on her parents’ income and at present she is not in a position to send her daughter to school without any maintenance allowance. Accordingly, Mr. Mannaf, the learned counsel for the respondent/first party submitted that the present criminal revision petition may be dismissed, as there is no reason to make any interference in the order passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court at Barpeta in F.C. (Crl.) Case No.654/2022. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides, it is seen that the present petition is basically instituted with the allegation that the respondent/first party is not entitled to any maintenance as she willfully deserted her matrimonial home. She also refused to return back in spite of repeated request and as such, she is not entitled for any maintenance. On the other hand, it is the case of the respondent/first party that due to continuous Page No.# 4/4 mental and physical torture on her, since the day of her marriage, she was bound to left her matrimonial home with her minor daughter. In support of her case, the respondent/first party also adduced her evidence and the petitioner/second party cross-examined her at a length but he did not adduce any evidence to substantiate his plea that the respondent/first party left her matrimonial home on her own, without any reason. Considering all these aspects of the case as well as the evidence adduced by the petitioner/second party and the assessment of the evidence by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court at Barpeta, this Court is of the opinion that there is no need of any interference of this Court in the order passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court at Barpeta. That apart, it also reveals that the petitioner/second party is also a defaulter and there is huge arrear amount is pending and in spite of the direction of this Court, the petitioner/second party is not paying the interim maintenance of Rs. 3,000/- per month regularly. Considering all the above, the petition stands dismissed and the learned Principal Judge, Family Court at Barpeta is hereby directed to proceed with the execution case and to take necessary steps for payment of the maintenance allowance by the petitioner/second party. Return back the TCR along with a copy of this order forthwith. JUDGE Comparing Assistant