Page No.# 1/7 GAHC010167892024 2026:GAU-AS:14027 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Rev.P./318/2024 ARCHANA BARMAN D/O LATE AMBIKA BARMAN PERMANENT RESIDENT OF- VILL- BALIKURIA P.O. BALIKURIA, P.S. NALBARI DIST. NALBARI, ASSAM, PIN-781341 PRESENTLY RESIDING AT H. NO. 4, BISHNU RABHA PATH, BOGORITAL, BOTHAGHULI, PANJABARI, GUWAHATI, DIST. KAMRUP (M), ASSAM PIN-781037 VERSUS BHABESH BARMAN S/O SRI KHAGENDRA NATH BARMAN R/O GADAPANI NAGAR, RAM KRISHNA MISSION ROAD, P.S. PALTAN BAZAR, P.O. ULUBARI, GUWAHATI, DIST. KAMRUP (M), ASSAM, PIN-781007 Advocate for the Petitioner : MISS. A BARUAH, Advocate for the Respondent : MS. T PARASHAR (AMICUS CURIAE), Page No.# 2/7 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANJAL DAS ORDER 16.09.2026 Heard Miss. A. Baruah, learned counsel for the appellant Ms. T. Parasar, learned counsel was appointed as Amicus Curiae for representing the respondent. 2. The instant criminal revision petition has been filed invoking the powers under Section 438/442 BNSS, read with Section 19(4) the Family Courts Act 1984 seeking interference with the order dated 10/7/2024, passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court No.3, Kamrup (M), Guwahti in FC(Crl.) Case No. 478/2023. 3. The wife of the respondent has preferred a petition before the learned Family Court at Guwahati under Section 125 Cr.P.C seeking a monthly maintenance of Rs.30,000/- along with an interim maintenance of @ Rs.20,000/- from the respondent/second party towards upkeep and maintenance of herself and her daughter. The parties are stated to have been married as per Hindu rites; thereafter, a female child was born out of wedlock on 22/01/2015. The petitioner had contended before the learned Family Court that she is staying in her parental house and has no source of income, whereas the respondent is working as a Senior Accountant in a Cement Company earning approximately of Rs.45,000/- as salary, apart from having some ancestral landed property at Guwahati. The marriage is admitted by the husband as well as the paternity of the child. However, both sides filed the affidavits of assets and liabilities in terms of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha Page No.# 3/7 (2021) 2 SCC 324. 4. In the income affidavit, the respondent has stated his monthly salary to be Rs.42,000/- working as Senior Executive Accounts under the Meghalaya Cements Limited at Guwahati. It was contended by the petitioner that she does not have any income but her husband is having a monthly salary of more than Rs.45,000/- working as a Senior Accounts Executive in the cement company, Guwahati. The respondent however, had contended that the petitioner is not bereft of income and that she is working in a private company earning Rs.25,000/- and another Rs.10,000/- by private tuition. The petitioner in her income affidavit has indicated her monthly expenses to be Rs.15,000/-. 5. Though, the respondent was duly noticed, he did not choose to appear whereupon learned counsel was appointed as Amicus Curiae to represent him. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that by way of interim maintenance, impugned order dated 10/7/2024 passed by the learned Family Court granting maintenance of Rs.4,000/- each to herself and her child is inadequate considering her minimum monthly expenditure of Rs.15,000/- and keeping in mind the monthly income of the respondent in access of Rs.45,000/- 6. Another contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the maintenance amount was directed to be paid from the date of the order and she prays that the said amount may be enhanced and directed to be paid from the date of filing of the petition. In this context, the learned counsel fairly submits that in Rajnesh vs Neha (supra), though the Hon’ble Apex Court has clearly laid down that the maintenance order has to be paid from the date of filing of the petition, the said enunciation of law is silent in respect of interim maintenance. However, she submits that the interim maintenance is also desirable to be paid from the date of application in terms of the principles Page No.# 4/7 enunciated in the aforesaid decision. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred to Bank statements annexed with her petition and drawn attention to the entry of March 2024 of an amount of Rs.46,712/-, submitting in this context, that by this time the salary of the respondent had increased and that this was the salary amount of the respondent husband at that time in March 2024. 8. The learned Amicus Curiae fairly submit that she does not have the benefit of taking instructions from the respondent/husband. Nevertheless, it is submitted that the proceeding seeking maintenance is still under adjudication and by way of an interim measure, the learned Family Court has paid the amount of Rs.4,000/- each to the mother and child and that the same cannot be said to be completely off the mark. 9. Drawing attention to para 10 of the written statement filed by the respondent in the ongoing proceeding before the learned Family Court a copy of which is annexed with the revision petition, it is submitted that there was a decree of restitution of conjugal rights and as the same was not complied with; subsequently, the respondent filed a divorce proceeding before the Family Court which is pending. To this, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that she was not noticed about the said decree of restitution of conjugal rights. 10. I have perused the materials and given my consideration to the matter. It cannot be lost sight of that the main proceeding whereby the petitioner is seeking maintenance from the respondent is undergoing adjudication before the learned Family Court. The limited adjudication in this revision is regarding the quantum of the interim maintenance. 11. From the income affidavit of the parties it is revealed that the monthly Page No.# 5/7 income of the respondent at the time of its filing was Rs.42,000/- and though the respondent has stated about the petitioner's income but she in her affidavit claims to be dependent on parents and looking after the child having monthly expenditure of Rs.15,000/-. 12. A reference can be made to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Kalyan J Chaudhary versus Rita J Chaudhary (2017) 14 SCC 200, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held that 25% of the husband's net salary would be a just and proper amount to be awarded as maintenance to the wife. The relevant paragraphs are reproduced herein below: Kalyan Dey Chowdhury v. Rita Dey Chowdhury Nee Nandy, (2017) 14 SCC 200 “15. The review petition under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC came to be filed by the respondent wife pursuant to the liberty granted by this Court when the earlier order dated 2-2-2015 [Rita Dey Chaudhury v. Kalyan Dey Chowdhury, 2015 SCC OnLine Cal 10447] awarding a maintenance of Rs 16,000 to the respondent wife as well as to her minor son was under challenge before this Court. As pointed out by the High Court, in February 2015, the appellant husband was getting a net salary of Rs 63,842 after deduction of Rs 24,000 on account of GPF and Rs 12,000 towards income tax. In February 2016, the net salary of the appellant is stated to be Rs 95,527. Following Kulbhushan Kumar v. Raj Kumari [Kulbhushan Kumar v. Raj Kumari, (1970) 3 SCC 129] , in this case, it was held that 25% of the husband's net salary would be just and proper to be awarded as maintenance to the respondent wife. The amount of permanent alimony awarded to the wife must be befitting the status of the parties and the capacity of the spouse to pay maintenance. Maintenance is always dependent on the factual situation of the case and the court would be justified in moulding the claim for maintenance passed on various factors. Since in February 2016, the net salary of the husband was Rs 95,000 per month, the High Court was justified in enhancing the maintenance amount. However, since the appellant has also got married second time and has a child from the second marriage, in the interest of justice, we think it proper to reduce the amount of maintenance of Rs 23,000 to Rs 20,000 per month as maintenance to the respondent wife and son.” Page No.# 6/7 (emphasis added) Kulbhushan Kumar (Dr) v. Raj Kumari, (1970) 3 SCC 129 “21. A sum of Rs 250 per month for the maintenance of the wife of a person occupying the position of the appellant cannot be said to err on the liberal side. The High Court, in our opinion, very rightly fixed that sum making it subject to the limit of 25 per cent of the income as found by the Income Tax authorities. We have no reason to take any different view. Subject to our observation as to the determination of the income of the appellant, the appeal against the wife is dismissed with costs.” (emphasis added) 13. Therefore, the aforesaid observation can be a rough formula for awarding of maintenance. In any case, it has to be considered that the quantum of maintenance also has to address the life situation and economic status that the petitioner was used to in her matrimonial situation. Therefore, an amount of 25% of the husband's salary is a reasonable amount to address her needs, the other things being equal. 14. In the instant case, the adjudication of maintenance amount is not only with regard to the wife but also the minor child of the parties whose upkeep is the joint responsibility of both the parents. 15. The latest salary of the respondent would be a matter of determination based on evidence during the procedure. However, at this stage, if we go by the salary revealed in the income affidavit it can be said that an approximate amount of Rs.11,000/- per month which is Rs.500/- more that 25% of the admitted monthly income of Rs.42,000/- could meet the ends of justice. 16. Needless to say that in the present times with cost of living, the said amount in an absolute sense may also be grossly inadequate for the upkeep of an adult along with a school-going minor. However, the determination is to be made vis-à-vis the income of the husband and in this particular case such Page No.# 7/7 determination is by way of interim maintenance. 17. In the facts and circumstances, the impugned order dated 10.07.2024 is interfered with and modified on the following line: (a) the respondent shall pay of Rs.5,500/- each towards the maintenance of the petitioner and their minor child of the parties totaling Rs.11,000/- (b) the interim maintenance amount shall be paid from the date of the application in terms of the principle enunciated in Rajnesh vs Neha (supra). Respondents will also pay the arrears amount if any, regarding the maintenance amount. (c) The amount shall be paid directly into the bank account of the petitioner by the respondent and a receipt furnished to her either physically or electronically and before the court. 18. The account details of the petitioner are as follows: AC No.7092015133475 of Assam Gramin Vikash Bank, Nalbari Branch, IFSC Code PUNBORRBAGB. 19. The criminal revision petition accordingly stands allowed to the extent indicated above and is disposed of. 20. The court records its appreciation for the services rendered by learned Amicus Curiae. She shall be entitled to the usual fees. 20. A copy of the order shall be furnished to the learned Amicus Curiae. JUDGE Comparing Assistant