Crl.Rev.Pet./77/2026 Page 1 GAHC010030252026 2026:GAU-AS:9792 IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Crl. Rev. Pet./77/2026 1. Ridip Lochan Huzuri S/O Late Nagen Huzuri R/O House No. 23, Jyoti Nagar, Bamunimaidan, P.O. Bamunimaidan, P.S. Chandmari, Guwahati-781021, Dist. Kamrup(M), Assam …..Petitioner -Versus- 1. Smti Pankhi Hazarika D/O Sri Ridip Lochan Huzuri Presently Residing At Flat No. 5e, 5th Floor, Citizen Apartment, Sachal Path, Six Miles, P.O. Khanapara, P.S. Dispur, Guwahati781022, Dist. Kamrup (M), Assam Permanent Resident of Vill- Kharati, Mazgaon, Tezpur, P.O. Tezpur, P.S.Mahabhairab, Dist. Sonitpur, Assam, Pin-784001 ……Respondent Crl.Rev.Pet./77/2026 Page 2 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA Advocate for petitioner : Mr. N. N. B. Choudhury, Sr. Advocate Mr. K. Kashyap, Advocate Advocate for respondent : Ms. R. S. Chowdhury, Advocate Date on which judgment is re- served : 04.06.2026 Date of pronouncement of judgment : 17.07.2026 Whether the pronouncement is of the Operative part of the judgment : N/A Whether the full judgment has been pronounced : Yes Judgment and Order 1) Heard Mr. N. N. B. Choudhury, the learned Senior Counsel as- sisted by Mr. K. Kashyap, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. R. S. Chowdhury, the learned counsel for the respondent. 2) This revision petition has been registered on filing of an appli- cation under Section 19 (4) of the Family Court’s Act read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 by the pe- titioner namely, Sri Ridip Lochan Huzuri, impugning the ex- parte order dated 05.01.2026 passed by the learned Principal Crl.Rev.Pet./77/2026 Page 3 Judge, Family Court No. 1, Kamrup (M), Guwahati in FC (Crl) Case No. 103/2024 whereby the present petitioner was di- rected to pay an amount of Rs. 10,000/- per month to the re- spondent and Rs. 8,000/- per month to her minor child as ad interim maintenance from the date of filing of the case. 3) The facts relevant for consideration of the instant case, in brief, are that the present respondent, who is the wife of the present petitioner, got married to each other on 16.08.2011 as per Hindu rituals and out of the said wedlock a girl child was born on 10.07.2014. However, matrimonial discord arose be- tween the parties and the present petitioner filed an applica- tion under Section 27 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 seek- ing a decree of divorce from the present respondent. 4) The respondent, namely, Ms. Pankhi Hazarika, also filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Proce- dure, 1973 before the Principal Judge, Family Court No. 1, Kamrup (M) against the present petitioner seeking mainte- nance amount of Rs. 75,000/- per month from the present pe- titioner. In the said proceeding under Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, a prayer for grant of interim mainte- nance of Rs. 50,000/- was also been made by the respondent along with some other relief like cost of the proceeding etc. 5) By the order impugned in this case, the Principal Judge, Fami- ly Court No. 1, Kamrup (M) had disposed of the prayer for in- terim maintenance by directing the present petitioner to pay Crl.Rev.Pet./77/2026 Page 4 the interim maintenance, in the manner, as already described in the paragraph No. 2 of this judgment. 6) Mr. N. N. B. Chowdhury, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Trial Court has erred in grant- ing the interim maintenance from the date of filing of the case without mentioning any special reasons for doing so. He sub- mits that the law mandates that the interim maintenance shall be granted only from the date of the order and the exception to same is provided in the Section 125 (2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, itself, indicating the circumstances when the Court may grant interim maintenance from the date of applica- tion. However, he submits that for doing so special reasons are to be recorded in the order itself, which he submits has not been done in the instant case by the learned Trial Court. 7) In support of his submissions, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has cited the following rulings of the Apex Court: i. Rajnesh Vs Neha & Ors. reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324. ii. Madhu Limaye Vs. the State of Maharashtra reported in (1977) 4 SCC 551. 8) The learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits that in the case of Rajnesh Vs Neha & Ors (supra) though the Apex Court had clarified that the maintenance is to be awarded from the date of application. However, same is applicable only in Crl.Rev.Pet./77/2026 Page 5 case of final maintenance and the Apex Court has not specifi- cally mention that same ratio is applicable in the case of inter- im maintenance also. He submits that in case of interim maintenance, the statutory provisions contained in the Section 125 requiring mentioning reasons for grant of interim mainte- nance from the date of application is still a good law. 9) He also submits that in the instant case, the respondent has violated the guidelines of the Apex Court in not submitting the statement of her assets and liabilities along with the applica- tion for maintenance. He submits that the respondents has filed her statement of assets and liabilities after a delay of about 19 months. 10) He also submits even though if there is some error in the no- menclature of the instant case as criminal revision as same has been registered as criminal revision petition. However, as the petitioner has also filed this case under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the same is maintainable against an order of granting interim maintenance. He submits that a petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Proce- dure is maintainable against intermediate order. He therefore submits that since the impugned order has been passed in vio- lation of the mandatory statutory requirement, the same is lia- ble to be quashed. He submits that the petitioner is ready to pay interim maintenance from the date of order. He also sub- mits that monthly interim maintenance as directed by the Crl.Rev.Pet./77/2026 Page 6 Court is being regularly paid by the petitioner to the respond- ent. 11) On the other hand, Ms. R. S. Chowdhury, the learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that there is no error in the impugned order passed by the Trial Court and the same needs no interference by this Court. 12) She submits that this Criminal Revision Petition is not main- tainable on the ground that the order which has been im- pugned in this case is an interlocutory order. She also submits that the appeal under Section 19 (4) of the Family Court’s Act, 1987 is not maintainable against an interlocutory order. 13) She further submits that there has been no delay in filing the statement of the assets and liabilities by the respondent before the Trial Court as when the petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was filed before the Trial Court, at that time, it was not the practice in the Family Court to require filing of the statement of assets and liabilities along with the said petition. She submits that it was on 17.09.2024 only when the Trial Court directed for the first time to submit the state- ment of assets and liabilities. She also submits that the re- spondent had initially filed the statement of assets and liabili- ties before the Family Court. However, when some discrepan- cies in the same was pointed out by the other side, she was required to file a fresh statement of assets and liabilities after taking permission by the Family Court. She however submits Crl.Rev.Pet./77/2026 Page 7 that the petitioner on the other hand, himself took several ad- journments to file the statement of assets and liabilities. 14) The learned counsel for the respondent submits that in the case of Rajnesh Vs Neha & Ors (supra) in paragraph Nos. 109 and 113 of the same judgment, the Apex Court had issued direction to bring about uniformity and consistency in the or- ders passed by the Court by directing them to maintenance be awarded from the date on which the application was made. She submits that maintenance also includes interim mainte- nance and therefore after clarification of the date of awarding maintenance/interim maintenance by the Apex Court, the re- quirement of assigning any special reasons for awarding maintenance from the date of application as prescribed under Section 125(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure is no longer there. 15) I have considered the submissions made by the learned coun- sel for both sides. I have also gone through the materials available on record. I have also gone through the rulings cited by learned counsel for both sides in support of their respective submissions. 16) The limited question for determination involved in this revision petition is as to whether, while granting interim maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, from the date of filing of the application for maintenance, is there any requirement of mentioning special reasons for doing Crl.Rev.Pet./77/2026 Page 8 so under Section 125 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 17) Though, the question of maintainability of the instant revision petition under Section 19 (4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 has been raised by the respondent side, however, considering the importance of the question for determination involved in this case, this court is not going into the question as to wheth- er a revision application is maintainable under Section 19 (4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 against an interlocutory order or not, and instead is treating this application as an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and is inclined to determine the limited question involved in this revision petition, and for that matter, this court is treating this case as a criminal petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, instead of a revision under Sec- tion 19 (4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984. 18) The provisions contained in Section 125 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is quoted herein below: “(2)[ Any such allowance for the maintenance or interim maintenance and expenses for proceeding shall be payable from the date of the order, or, if so ordered, from the date of the application for maintenance or interim maintenance and expenses of proceeding, as the case may be.]” 19) On a bare perusal of the aforesaid statutory provision, it ap- pears that the statute empowers the court to grant mainte- Crl.Rev.Pet./77/2026 Page 9 nance or interim maintenance from both, the date of the order or the date of the application, if so ordered by the court. The statutory provision quoted here in above does not require mentioning of any special reason for granting maintenance or interim maintenance from the date of the application. What is required is that while granting interim maintenance from the date of the application, the same has to be ordered by the court concerned. 20) The question as to from which date the maintenance is to be awarded was considered by the Apex Court in the case of Rajnesh Vs Neha & Ors. (supra). After discussing the diver- gent views of different High Courts as to from which date maintenance has to be awarded, the Apex Court has observed and issued directions, in the aforesaid case, as follows: “109. The judgments hereinabove reveal the divergent views of different High Courts on the date from which maintenance must be awarded. Even though a judicial discretion is conferred upon the court to grant maintenance either from the date of application or from the date of the order in Section 125(2) CrPC, it would be appropriate to grant maintenance from the date of application in all cases, including Section 125 CrPC. In the practical working of the provisions relating to maintenance, we find that there is significant delay in disposal of the applications for interim maintenance for years Crl.Rev.Pet./77/2026 Page 10 on end. It would therefore be in the interests of justice and fair play that maintenance is awarded from the date of the application. 113. It has therefore become necessary to issue directions to bring about uniformity and consistency in the orders passed by all courts, by directing that maintenance be awarded from the date on which the application was made before the court concerned. The right to claim maintenance must date back to the date of filing the application, since the period during which the maintenance proceedings remained pending is not within the control of the applicant.” 21) Thus, from above, it appears that though the statute confers a discretion upon the court to grant maintenance either from the date of application or from the date of order, however, the Apex Court has clarified that it would be appropriate to grant maintenance from the date of application in all cases including Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The clarifica- tion given by the Apex Court leaves no room for doubt that even in a case of grant of interim maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, it would be ap- propriate to grant the maintenance from the date of filing of the application and no special reasons are required to be men- tioned therefor. Crl.Rev.Pet./77/2026 Page 11 22) In view of the discussions made and reasons stated in the foregoing paragraph, this court finds no infirmity in the im- pugned order whereby the Family Court has directed the pre- sent petitioner to pay interim maintenance to the respondent as well as her daughter from the date of filing of the case (ap- plication). As such, this Revision Petition is found to be devoid of any merit and, accordingly, dismissed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant Amita Sharma 2026.07.17 15:42:39 +05'30'