Anwar Hussain Mazumder vs Ramecha Begom Laskar
2022 Latest Caselaw 3073 Gua

                                                                      Page No.# 1/4

GAHC010087502021




                              THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
     (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                                 Case No. : Crl.Pet./358/2021

            ANWAR HUSSAIN MAZUMDER
            S/O. LT. ABDUL AHAD MAZUMDER, VILL. RANGAUTI PART-II, P.O.
            RATANPUR ROAD, P.S. HAILAKANDI, DIST. HAKLAKANDI, ASSAM.



            VERSUS

            RAMECHA BEGOM LASKAR
            D/O. LT. ABDUL MUSABBIR LASKAR, VILL. SOYEEDBOND PART-I, P.O.
            KALIBARI BAZAR, P.S. ALGAPUR, DIST. HAILAKANDI, ASSAM.



Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR. A M BARBHUIYA

Advocate for the Respondent : MR. B U LASKAR




                                   BEFORE
                      HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN

                                          ORDER

Date : 18-08-2022

Heard Mr. A. M. Barbhuiya, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. U. Laskar, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. In this criminal petition, under Section 482 read with Section 397 of the Cr.P.C., the petitioner, namely, Anwar Hussain Mazumdar, has Page No.# 2/4

challenged the legality, propriety and correctness of the judgment and order dated 12.03.2021, passed by the learned Additional Session Judge, Hailakandi, and also the judgment and order dated 06.08.2019, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Hailakandi in M. R. Case No. 140/2017.

3. It is to be noted here that vide the impugned judgment and order dated 06.08.21019, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Hailakandi, has directed the petitioner to pay maintenance to the respondent @ Rs. 4000/- per month and vide impugned judgment and order dated 12.03.2021, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hailakandi, in Criminal Revision Petition No. 49 of 2019, has upheld the aforesaid judgment and order of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Hailakandi.

4. Mr. A. M. Barbhuiya, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has no permanent source of income and that he is not in a position to pay the amount of Rs. 4,000/- per month to the respondent.

5. On the other hand, Mr. B. U. Laskar, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the petitioner hails from a well to do family and his father is also a renowned Doctor and he has rental shops and the amount of Rs. 4,000/- is justified and therefore, it is contended to upheld the same.

6. Having heard the submission of the learned Advocates of both the sides, I have carefully gone through the judgment and order of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, wherein, in paragraph no. 17, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class has considered the income of the petitioner and the respondent and thereafter, in paragraph no. 18, decided Page No.# 3/4

the quantum @ Rs. 4,000/- per month.

7. And while dealing with the issue of quantum of maintenance in paragraph no. 33, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has observed that

granting Rs. 4,000/- per month to the 1 st party/respondent as maintenance amount, considering the price index and the cost of living vis-a-vis standard of living of the parties borne out of case record, the same cannot be said to be unreasonable and arbitrarily high.

8. Thus, it appears that while dealing with the issue of quantum of maintenance, none of the Courts below have considered the direction issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajnesh vs. Neha & Anr. in Criminal Appeal No. 730 of 2020 arising out of SLP(Crl.) No. 9530 of

2018.

9. On a pointed query of this Court, the learned Advocates of both the parties submit that the parties have never filed any Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities before the learned Court below indicating their financial liabilities and income, as provided in Part-B -III of the Judgment in the case of Rajnish (supra). On further query it is agreed by the learned counsel of both the parties that the matter be remanded to the court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Hailakandi to decide the quantum of maintenance a fresh, after affording an opportunity to the parties to file their Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities, by setting aside the impugned judgment and orders.

10. In view of the above, this Court deems it fit and proper to set aside the impugned judgments and orders, dated 12.03.2021, passed by the learned Additional Session Judge, Hailakandi in Criminal Revision Petition Page No.# 4/4

No. 49/2019, and judgment and order dated 06.08.2019, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Hailakandi in M. R. Case No. 140/2017, and to direct the parties to appear before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Hailakandi on 12.09.2022, and to file their Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities indicating their financial liabilities and income, and thereafter, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class shall proceed to decide the quantum of maintenance upon their Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities, after hearing both the parties.

11. In terms of above, this criminal petition stands disposed of.

12. Stay granted, if any, stands vacated.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant