CRP(IO)/362/2024
2025 Latest Caselaw 9413 Gua

Gauhati High Court

CRP(IO)/362/2024 on 12 December, 2025

                                                                               Page 1 of 9


GAHC010189812024




                                                               2025:GAU-AS:17375

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

                     Civil Revision Petition (IO)No. 362/2024

                                  Sanjib Hazarika,
                                  S/o-Late Hiranya Hazarika,
                                  R/o- Village-Niz Jagial, Mouza-Jagial,
                                  P.O.- Baligaon, Pin-782144,P.S. Raha,
                                  Dist-Nagaon (Assam).
                                                                               Petitioner

                                            -Versus-

                                  Mitali Hazarika,
                                  W/o-Sri Sanjib Hazarika,
                                  D/o-Late Kushewar Neog,
                                  R/o-Narempathar, Borhat,
                                  P.S.-Barhat, Mouza-Baruachali,
                                  District-Charaideo (Assam).
                                  Presently Residing At-
                                  Village-Chokorigaon, Mouza-Niz      Sahar,     P.S.-Sadar,
                                  District-Nagaon(Assam).

                                                                           Respondent

BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA JUDGEMENT AND ORDER(CAV)

Advocate for the petitioner : Mr. R. Goswami, Advocate.

CRP(IO)/362/2024                                                                   Page 1



    Advocate for the respondent                  : Mr. S.R. Boruah, Advocate.

    Date on which judgment is reserved           : 17.11.2025

    Date of pronouncement of judgment            : 12.12.2025

1. Heard Mr. R. Goswami, the learned counsel for the petitioner.

Also heard Mr. S. R. Boruah, the learned counsel for the respondent.

2. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Sanjib Hazarika, impugning the order dated 18.03.2024, passed by the learned Additional District Judge No.2, Nagaon, Assam in Misc(J) Case No.27/2022, in connection with Matrimonial Suit (Divorce) No.44/2021, whereby on an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the petitioner was directed to pay an interim maintenance allowance of Rs.8,000/- (Rupees eight thousand) in total to the respondent and her minor children as well as an amount of Rs. 6,00/- (Rupees six hundred) per month towards the expenses of the proceedings.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the present respondent, who is the wife of the petitioner, has

CRP(IO)/362/2024 Page 2

instituted a divorce case seeking divorce from the present petitioner before the court of learned Additional District Judge No.2, Nagaon, which was registered as Matrimonial Suit (Divorce) No.44/2021. He further submits that the present petitioner, on the other hand has filed an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for restitution of the conjugal rights. He further submits that in the said divorce case, the respondent had filed an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking pendente lite maintenance and expenses of the proceedings from the present petitioner and by the impugned order the aforementioned maintenance allowance and expenses of proceeding was directed to be paid by the present petitioner.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the trial court, while granting the aforesaidpendente lite maintenance allowance and expenses of the proceeding, had failed to take into consideration the fact that the respondent, while filing the application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 had suppressed the fact that in an earlier proceeding under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which was registered as M.R. Case No. 48/2021, whereby the petitioner was earlier directed to pay an amount of Rs.8,000/- (Rupees eight thousand) per month to the respondent and her minor daughters. He further submits that the trial court

CRP(IO)/362/2024 Page 3

also failed to take into consideration the fact that the petitioner while submitting the application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 failed to submit any affidavit of her asset and liabilities in support of her claim.

5. He also submitted that the petitioner in his written objection to the application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 as well as in the written statement filed in the main divorce suit has specifically stated about his liability including repayments of home loans and other liabilities which amounts to total of Rs. 38,252/- (Rupees thirty-eight thousand two hundred and fifty-two) per month. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that against the aforesaid liabilities to be incurred by the petitioner, he draws a net pay of Rs.50, 587/- (Rupees fifty thousand five hundred eighty- seven only).

6. He further submits that in the trial court also failed to take into consideration the fact that after separating from the present petitioner, the respondent is staying with another person. He submits that the impugned order is, therefore, liable to be interfered with, as the trial court failed to take into consideration the above aspects.

7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioner on the

CRP(IO)/362/2024 Page 4

ground that the trial court has passed the impugned order after taking into consideration all the aspects and no infirmity is there in the impugned order warranting any interference by this court.

8. He submits that though, the petitioner has not submitted any affidavit of assets and liabilities, however, the fact that the petitioner and her minor children were directed to be paid monthly maintenance allowance of Rs. 8,000/- (Rupees eight thousand) per month in M.R. case No. 48/2021 was taken into consideration by the trial court while allowing pendente lite maintenance and expenses of the proceedings. He submits that while considering an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the court has to primarily look into the fact as to whether the petitioner, who is applying for such a pendente lite maintenance and expenses of the proceeding has no independent income sufficient for her or his support. He submits that same has been taken into consideration by the trial court. He further submits that though the trial court has passed the impugned order dated 18.03.2024 directing the petitioner to pay the pendente lite maintenance as well as expenses of the proceedings within with effect from 30.07.2022, however, till date not even a single penny has been paid by the petitioner.

CRP(IO)/362/2024 Page 5

9. The learned counsel for the respondent has further submitted that as the application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 was filed by the respondent prior to final order in M.R. Case No. 48/2021. The respondent could not mention about the direction given by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nagaon regarding payment of Rs. 8,000/- (Rupees eight hundred) to the respondent under Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

10. The learned counsel for the respondent has further submitted that the respondent also had taken the plea in her application under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 that the petitioner in addition to the monthly salary which he gets as a constable of Assam police has income from agriculture source also.

11. I have considered the submissions made by the counsel for both sides and have gone through the materials available on records.

12. The Apex Court in the case of "Shalini Shyam Shetty And Another Vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil" reported in "(2010) 8 SCC

329"has observed that the High Court's cannot, on the drop

of a hat, in exercise of its powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution, interfere with the orders of the tribunals or courts inferior to it nor can it, in exercise of this

CRP(IO)/362/2024 Page 6

power, act as a court of appeal over the orders of court or tribunal subordinate to it.

13. The High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction of superintendence can interfere in order only to keep the tribunals or courts subordinate to it within the bounds of their authority.It can also interfere in exercise of its power of superintendence when there has been a patent perversity in the orders of the tribunals or courts subordinate to it or where there has been gross and manifest failure of justice or basic principles of natural justice have been infringed.This jurisdiction of superintendence over courts subordinate to it has to be exercised very sparingly by the High Court and only in fit cases.

14. In the instant case, by the impugned order, the pendente lite maintenance and expenses for proceeding, during the pendency of the Matrimonial Suit (Divorce) No. 44/2021, was granted to the respondent wife, who had instituted the aforesaid divorce against the present petitioner.

15. The respondent was granted monthly maintenance allowance of Rs. 3,500/- (Rupees three thousand five hundred) whereas, her elder daughter was granted monthly allowance of Rs. 2,500/- (Rupees two thousand five hundred) and younger daughter was granted monthly allowance of Rs.

CRP(IO)/362/2024 Page 7

2,000/- (Rupees two thousand) [in total Rs. 8,000/-(Rupees eight thousand)] and expenses towards proceeding of the divorce suit was granted @ Rs. 600/-(Rupees six thousand) per month.

16. Though the petitioner has contended that the respondent had suppressed the fact that she was granted monthly maintenance of Rs. 8,000/- (Rupees eight thousand) in the proceeding under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in M.R. Case No. 48/2021, however, it appears that the grant of monthly maintenance in M.R. Case No. 48/2021 was after filing of application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 by the petitioner.

17. Moreover, on perusal of the impugned order, it appears that in paragraph 11 of the said order, the trial court took into consideration the fact that the interim maintenance of Rs. 8,000/-(Rupees eight thousand) per month granted to the respondent in M.R. Case No. 48/2021 was found insufficient. On perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the trial court mainly took into consideration of the fact that the wife (present respondent) does not have any independent source of income and the interim maintenance of Rs. 8,000/-(Rupees eight thousand) per month granted to her in M.R. Case No.

CRP(IO)/362/2024 Page 8

48/2021 was found to be insufficient and she is likely to face financial hardship in continuing the divorce suit.

18. Thus, this court is of the considered opinion that the reasons cited by the trial court while granting the pendente lite maintenance and expenses of the proceeding to the respondent cannot be regarded as arbitrary or suffering from any infirmity. Neither there appears to be any gross and manifest failure of justice or flouting of the basic principles of natural justice.

19. This court, cannot interfere in the impugned order just because another view than the one taken by the trial court, is a possible view.

20. This court is, thus, of the considered opinion that the impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality justifying any interference by this court in exercise of its powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

21. The instant civil revision petition (IO) is, accordingly, dismissed.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant Munmu Digitally signed by Munmun Boruah

n Boruah Date: 2025.12.16 14:45:47 +05'30'

CRP(IO)/362/2024 Page 9