Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010268732022 2026:GAU-AS:3668 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Rev.P./611/2022 HAFIZUR RAHMAN S/O ARFAN ALI, R/O VILL-BANBARIA, BHELLA, P.O.-BHELLA, DIST- BARPETA, ASSAM VERSUS MISS SAMSUN NEHAR D/O BADAR UDDIN AHMED, R/O CHENGA MUSALMANPARA, P.O.- CHENGA, P.S.-TARABARI, DIST-BARPETA, ASSAM, PIN-781305 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. R ALI, MR A S SK,H A AHMED Advocate for the Respondent : MR. A GOYAL, MISS. S PARBIN,N PERVIN,MR M Z SHAH,MR. A CHOUDHURY BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER Date : 13-03-2026 Heard Mr. R. Ali, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. M.Z. Shah, the learned counsel for the respondent. 2. This is an application u/s 397/401 read with Section 482 Cr.PC against the Page No.# 2/5 impugned judgment and order dated 29.10.2022 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Barpeta in F.C.(Criminal) Case No. 561/2021 directing the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs. 10,000/- per month towards the maintenance of the respondent and Rs. 5,000/- per month to the minor daughter from the date of filing of the petition. 3. Mr. Ali, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted in this regard that the respondent had instituted an application seeking maintenance u/s 125 Cr.PC before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Barpeta alleging some mental and physical torture as well as demand of dowry etc. After receiving the notice in the said case, the present petitioner appeared as a second party and filed his Written Statement, accordingly, wherein he denied the case of the respondent. However, the marriage and the paternity of the child is not disputed by him. Further, it is also not disputed that he is a CISF Constable and has the capacity of earning. But, as he had to be posted outside State, he filed an application before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court praying for engaging an Advocate to conduct his case. But, vide Order dated 19.07.2022, the learned Principal Judge had rejected his prayer for engaging counsel to defend his case. As no counsel could be appointed on his behalf and as the petitioner had to be remained outside the State of Assam due to his engagement in the Department, he could not appear before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court for adducing his evidence and he also did not got any chance of cross-examining the PWs. He further submitted that at the time of delivery of the judgment, he was at Madhya Pradesh for his promotional training for the period from 12.09.2022 to 08.10.2022. Subsequently, he came to know about the order of ex-parte judgment passed against him whereby he was directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- towards maintenance for the respondent and Rs. 5,000/- towards Page No.# 3/5 maintenance for her minor child. The petitioner further submitted that he is still paying the maintenance @ Rs. 10,000/- per month in view of the order passed by this Court dated 22.06.2023. But, as he did not get any opportunity to substantiate his plea taken in the WS by examining his witnesses or by cross- examining the PWs, the matter may be remanded back for fresh disposal with giving an opportunity of hearing to both the parties. In that context, he also submitted some documents, which substantiate the plea that during that relevant period of time, he had to be outside Assam for discharging his duties as a CISF Constable. 4. Mr. Shah, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted in this regard that after receiving the notice, the petitioner appeared before the learned Court of Principal Judge and filed his Written Statement wherein he took all the plea and also denied the case of the respondent. But, subsequently he failed to appear before the learned Trial Court below and for which the case proceeded ex-parte and the order was accordingly passed. 5. Mr. Shah further submitted that there may not be any interference in the award passed by the learned Principal Jude as the petitioner is getting more than Rs. 60,000/- per month towards his salary. Mr. Shah further submitted that a notice was duly served on him and while passing the judgment, the learned Principal Judge also considered the statement made in the Written Statement by the present petitioner. Hence there may not be any order for remand for fresh disposal of this case and the learned Principal Judge, Family Court had already considered all the aspects of the case, including the income of the present petitioner. 6. Hearing the submissions made by learned counsel for both sides, I have perused the case record and it is seen that one petition was filed seeking legal Page No.# 4/5 help appointing a counsel on his behalf. But, the said prayer was rejected by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Barpeta vide its order dated 19.07.2022 with an observation that as per Section 13 of the Family Courts Act, ordinarily there is no legal right vested to the second party to get represented by his Lawyer. But, hearing the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner, it is seen that the petitioner was in a situation wherein he was prevented with sufficient cause to appear before the learned Principal Judge on day to day basis as per his service condition who is discharging his duty as a CISF Constable. More so, the marriage and the paternity of the child is also not disputed in this case. However, it is a fact that the petitioner did not get any opportunity to substantiate his plea, either cross-examining the PWs or by adducing his WS. More so, from the submission made by Mr. Ali it is seen that the petitioner is still paying Rs. 10,000/- per month to the respondent and her minor child in pursuant to the order passed by this Court. It is a settled position that as per the Family Courts Act, the appointment of legal counsel cannot be claimed as a right by the second party. But, it can be allowed, if it is considered to be necessary for the interest of justice. In the instant case, it is seen that being a CISF Constable his duty may be outside the State and which may be hurdle for him to appear before learned Trial Court below at Barpeta, on each and every date and to contest the case. 7. Considering all these aspects of this case and the submission made by learned counsel for both sides, this Court is of the opinion that one opportunity may be given to the petitioner to substantiate his plea taken in the Written Statement and also to cross-examining the PWs and hence it is of the opinion of the Court that the case may be remanded for fresh disposal by allowing the petitioner to cross-examining the PWs and to adduce his evidence accordingly. Page No.# 5/5 However, it is clear that no stay order has been passed in providing maintenance to the respondent and his child as per direction of this Court and the petitioner will continue the payment until a fresh order is passed by the learned Principal Judge. 8. The learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Barpeta is also directed to dispose the matter afresh, preferably within 6 (six) months. 9. With the above observations, this writ petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant