Gauhati High Court
Arakhi Basumatari vs The State Of Assam And Anr on 6 August, 2025
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010035372020
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Crl.Pet./157/2020
ARAKHI BASUMATARI
S/O- MONIRAM BASUMATARY, R/O- DOMARIGURI, P.O- DOMARIGURI, P.S-
DOTMA, DIST- KOKRAJHAR
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR
REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM
2:BHANU BASUMATARY
D/O- LATE BAWDA BRAHMA
R/O- VILL- DOMARIGURI
P.S- DOTMA
DIST- KOKRAJHAR
ASSAM
PIN- 78337
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. I A TALUKDAR, MR. B HUSSAIN
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MRS. R S DEURI (r-2),MR. T DEURI (r-2),MS T
WAPANGLA (r-2)
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA
JUDGMENT
Date : 06-08-2025
Heard Mr. I.A. Talukdar learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard
Page No.# 2/4
Mr. P.S. Lahkar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State
and Mr. T.S. Deuri, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2.
2. This criminal petition is directed against the order dated 23.12.2019
passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC, Kokrajhar in Criminal
Revision Petition No. 17/2019, whereby the maintenance payable to the
respondent No.2 has been determined @ Rs.7000/- per-month.
3. It transpires that the petitioner was earlier paying maintenance of Rs.5,000/-
per month each to the respondent No.2 and their minor daughter and she filed
an application being Misc. Case No.07m/2019 under Section 127(1) of the Cr.PC
before the learned CJM, Kokrajhar for enhancement of said maintenance that
was being paid by the petitioner. By order dated 18.07.2019, the learned CJM,
Kokrajhar enhanced the said maintenance from Rs.500/- to Rs.10,000/- to the
respondent No.2 and the said quantum has now been fixed at Rs.7,000/- by the
impugned order dated 23.12.2019 noted above.
4. Mr. I.A. Talukdar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order
of maintenance was passed in respect of the respondent No.2/wife as well as
for his daughter. Initially, the learned trial Court by an order dated 22.10.2001
had granted an amount of Rs.500/- per-month each to the wife and to the
daughter, which was enhanced to Rs.10,000/- per-month in respect of the
present respondent No.2 from Rs.500/- per-month by an order dated
18.07.2019. The same was reduced to Rs.7000/- per-month by the learned
Additional District Judge, FTC, Bongaigaon.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that at that time the minor
daughter of the parties was living with the respondent No.2 but subsequently,
she attained majority and got married and therefore, the figure of Rs.7,000/-
Page No.# 3/4
granted by the learned Additional District Judge, FTC, Bongaigaon is required to
be suitably reduced.
6. Upon perusal of the record, it is seen that the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Kokrajhar by the judgment and order dated 18.07.2019 had granted
an amount of Rs.10,000/- only to the wife (first party therein) and no amount
was either sought or directed to be paid to their daughter.
7. A perusal of the record, more particularly, the evidence of PW-1 in Case
No.7M/2019 instituted by the present respondent No.2 Bhanu Basumatary,
reveals that the daughter of the parties was already married as on 17.05.2019.
Therefore, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that in view
of the marriage of the daughter, the maintenance amount of Rs.7,000/- is
required to be reduced, holds no water. Even otherwise, the amount of
Rs.7,000/- per-month as maintenance for a woman cannot be considered to be
on the higher side, keeping in view the fact that the petitioner was a
government servant getting regular salary somewhere in the region of
Rs.40,000/- per-month as a police constable. Even though it is submitted that
he is now retired, he would still be getting half of that amount as pension, not
to mention large sums of money as gratuity, leave encashment etc.
8. It is submitted that the petitioner has subsequently remarried and has two
sons who he is required to support. But such claim is also not tenable inasmuch
as, it appears from the unrebutted evidence of PW-1 in Case No.7 M/2019 that
the sons were aged 24 and 22 years way back in the year 2019. Therefore,
even at that time, they could not be regarded as dependents.
9. In view of what has been discussed hereinabove, I do not find any infirmity
in the impugned order requiring interference of the revisional court.
Page No.# 4/4
Consequently, the criminal petition stands dismissed.
Send back the TCR.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
