IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri 07.07.2026 Item No. 60 Ct. No. 5 CRR/202/2025 S.De In Re:- An application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.(Corresponding to Section 528 of BNSS. 2023) In the matter of : BISWAJIT SAHA … Petitioner. Mr. Jaydeep Kanta Bhowmik Mr. Sayantan Bhowmik Mr. Shubham Kumar Ms. Jasmin Haque Ms. Priti Das …for the Petitioner. Mr. Avrojyoti Das, ld. APP Mr. Atul Dong …for the State. 1. In the instant revision, the revisionist/petitioner/husband has challenged the order of Judicial Magistrate, 3rd Court, Jalpaiguri, dated 2-7-2024, in a case under section 125 Cr.P.C, which has been subsequently affirmed by the Learned Sessions Judge, Jalpaiguri, in criminal revision No. 15 of 2024, vide order dated 8-4-2025. 2 2. The matter relates with entitlement and quantification of maintenance, if any, payable to the opposite party/wife, who happens to be the petitioner before the Learned Magistrate. 3. The Magistrate in the order dated February 27, 2024, has found that the wife/opposite party would be eligible for maintenance allowance to the tune of Rs. 5,000/- per month and litigation cost to the tune of Rs. 5,000/- at one time. 4. Mr. Jaydeep Kanta Bhowmik, learned Advocate, appears for the petitioner. In spite of service being completed upon the opposite party/wife, none appears for the opposite party wife. 5. Mr. Jaydeep Kanta Bhowmik, learned Advocate for the petitioner, has submitted on the basis of materials produced before this Court by dint of supplementary affidavit, that the opposite party/wife has asserted before the Learned Trial Court during her evidence of her being earning independently from the profession of being a para-teacher under the state government. He has referred to the deposition of the opposite party to submit that the opposite party has asserted drawing a monthly salary to the tune of Rs.12,000/- and having been employed at the time of her marriage, also that the opposite 3 party/wife has asserted about no fixed monthly income of the present petitioner husband, he being an LIC agent. 6. Further, Mr. Jaydeep Kanta Bhowmik, learned Advocate for the petitioner, has submitted on the basis of the deposition of the opposite party/wife that there has been a gross violation of the laws settled in this regard by the Magistrate while passing the impugned order as above, insofar as the Magistrate has not called for any affidavit of assets and liabilities to be declared by the opposite party/wife before the same in terms of direction of the Supreme Court in the case Rajnesh Vs. Neha & Anr reported at 2020 6 Supreme 322 It is submitted that in a case of maintenance, since the law is now settled as per the said decision of the Supreme Court that the parties have to mandatorily submit affidavit with respect to their income and liability and the Court has to take a decision as regards maintenance on such affidavit and in the instant case, since no such affidavit has been filed by the opposite party/wife, the law as above which is now well settled is grossly violated. 7. On the submission as above, it is prayed for by the petitioner that the instant revision be allowed, directing 4 setting aside of the two orders of the Magistrate as well as learned Session Judge as mentioned above. 8. Inspite of service none appears for the opposite party. Hence, let the matter be disposed of in absence of the opposite party. 9. Having perused the materials on record and having heard Mr. Bhomik, learned advocate for the petitioner this court is of considered view that apparently neither the Magistrate in his order dated February 27, 2024 nor the Session Judge in his order dated 08th April, 2025 has considered the fact that the opposite party/wife has admittedly not submitted any affidavit of asset and liability before the Court. 10. Also that the law is now well settled in terms of judgment of the Supreme Court, namely, Rajnesh Vs. Neha & Anr reported at 2020 6 Supreme 322 that an affidavit of asset by the parties in a case of like nature is imperative and the Court's decision should be based on the declarations made in such affidavit by the respective parties. 11. Upon finding the admitted position that no such affidavit of asset in terms of the settled law was filed before the learned Trial Court in the instant case, accordingly the 5 decision of the Trial Court, vide order dated 27-2-2024 and subsequent decision of the Revision Court, vide order dated 8- 4-2025 appears to be not in consonance with the settled law. 12. Considering as above, I am inclined to set aside both the orders of the Magistrate dated February 27, 2024 and the learned Session Judge 08th April, 2025. 13. Let the instant case be remanded back to the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate 3rd Court at Jalpaiguri. The Magistrate shall obtain affidavits of assets and liabilities from the respective parties in accordance with law. 14. The Magistrate shall pass a final order on the basis of evidence already on record and the affidavits of assets obtained from the respective parties by him/her, pursuant to the direction as above. 15. Let a final decision be taken by the learned Magistrate positively within a period of 3 months from the date of communication of copy of this order before the same, without granting any unnecessary adjournment to any of the parties in the case. (Rai Chattopadhyay, J.)