Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/4 vs The State Of Assam And Anr on 6 August, 2025
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010051042024
2025:GAU-AS:10193
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Crl.Rev.P./88/2024
MANAB JYOTI LAL RAY
S/O NITAI LAL RAY, R/O VILL- KAMARPARA, P.O.-CHOIBARI, DIST-
KOKRAJHAR, ASSAM
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM
2:SMT. HIMANI RAY
D/O KESHAB CHANDRA RAY
R/O VILL AND P.O.-NORTH SALMARA
P.S.-ABHAYAPURI
DIST-BONGAIGAON
ASSAM
PIN
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. I A TALUKDAR, MS N.RAHMAN,MR. B HUSSAIN
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR. K KALITA (R-2)
Page No.# 2/4
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA
Date of Hearing : 05.08.2025
Date of Judgment : 06.08.2025
JUDGMENT AND ORDER
(S.K. Sharma, J)
Heard Mr. I A Talukdar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P S Lahkar, learned
Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam for the State. Also heard Mr. K Kalita, learned counsel for
the respondent No. 2.
2. The instant revision is directed against the impugned order dated 25.01.2024 passed by
the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bongaigaon in Misc Case No. 21/2021 under Section
125 of CrPC, whereby the learned CJM, Bongaigaon directed the petitioner to pay monthly
maintenance to the respondent No. 2/wife and their minor daughter @ Rs. 2,000/- per month
for each of them including arrears.
3. The case of the petitioner is that the respondent being the wife of the present petitioner
filed maintenance application under Section 125 CrPC seeking monthly maintenance of Rs.
15,000/- (rupees fifteen thousand) for herself and Rs. 20,000/- (rupees twenty thousand) per
month for her minor daughter, registered as Misc Case No. 21/2021 before the learned CJM,
Bongaigaon.
4. The petitioner stated that he filed his written statement before the learned CJM stating
the fact that the marriage took place on 26.06.2010 as per Hindu Religious rites and custom.
After the marriage a daughter was born on 26.05.2021. Thereafter due to acrimony created
between the parties, the present petitioner and the opposite party No. 2 out of mutual
consent in presence of the witnesses filed a mutual divorce petition before the learned District
Page No.# 3/4
& Sessions Judge, Bongaigaon through T.S(D) Case No. 53/2012 which was allowed and the
marriage between the parties was dissolved out of mutual consent by a judgment and order
dated 30.06.2014 and a decree was drawn on 11.07.2014 by the said Hon'ble Court of District
& Sessions Judge, Bongaigaon. At the time of divorce the petitioner and the opposite party
No. 2 mutually decided that the minor daughter namely, Smt. Susmita Ray will stay with her
mother that is opposite party No. 2 and the present petitioner shall bear the expenses of the
minor daughter. Further, at the time of mutual divorce the opposite party No. 2 took a sum of
Rs. 1,50,000/- (rupees one lakh fifty thousand) from the present petitioner as one time full
and final maintenance and surrendered the rights to claim further maintenance from the
petitioner.
5. Subsequently, in the maintenance case, i.e., Misc Case No. 21/2021 under Section 125
CrPC instituted by the respondent No. 2/wife of the petitioner, the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Bongaigaon was pleased to direct the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 2,000/- per
month to the respondent No. 2/wife and also to pay a sum of Rs. 2,000/- per month in favour
of his minor daughter, both effective from the date of application for maintenance.
6. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has preferred this instant revision.
7. The only prayer made in the instant revision is that the petitioner should be exempted
from payment of 50% of the outstanding arrear dues on account of maintenance as directed
by the learned Trial Court and that he is ready to pay the rest including the monthly
maintenance.
8. In justification of the aforesaid relief sought, it is urged that the petitioner had paid an
amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- to the respondent No. 2/wife as permanent alimony at the time of
divorce by mutual consent and therefore he is not in a position to pay the entire arrear
amount as directed by the learned Trial Court.
9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 has submitted that a
perusal of the order of divorce by mutual consent passed by the learned Trial Court does not
reveal any direction for grant of permanent alimony to the tune of Rs. 1,50,000/- and the
respondent No. 2 categorically denied receipt of any such sum. It is submitted that the
petitioner has set up a false plea in order to get himself exonerated from paying the arrear
Page No.# 4/4
dues.
10. On perusal of the record of the learned Trial Court, it is noticed that the petitioner as
opposite party in his written statement had set up a claim of having paid Rs. 1,50,000/- to his
wife at the time of mutual divorce, but during the cross-examination of the wife as PW-1, she
denied the suggestion that such sum was ever paid to her.
11. Furthermore, on perusal of the evidence of the OP (petitioner herein) as DW-1 would
show that he nowhere stated in his Examination-in-Chief that such amount of Rs. 1,50,000/-
was paid by him to his wife at any point of time.
12. During cross-examination, the petitioner admitted that he has no documentary evidence
to support his claim of having made such payment, a fact which was duly noted by the
learned Trial Court in its order dated 25.01.2024.
13. In the considered view of this Court, the amount of Rs. 4,000/- per month for
maintenance of the wife and child can hardly be said to be excessive and the same having
been granted by the learned Trial Court, it follows that the arrears of maintenance from the
date of the application for maintenance are also required to be paid.
14. The petitioner having failed to reasonably establish that he had paid an amount of Rs.
1,50,000/- to the respondent No. 2/wife, there is no scope for interference with any part of
the impugned order.
15. In the result, this criminal revision petition is found to be devoid of any merit and the
same accordingly stands dismissed.
16. Send back the TCR.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
