[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Gauhati High Court
Asif Ali Mir vs The State Of Assam And Anr on 17 December, 2025
Author: M. Zothankhuma
Bench: Michael Zothankhuma
Page No.# 1/6
GAHC010164592021
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Mat.App./23/2022
ASIF ALI MIR
S/O LATE MIR AKRAM ALI
RESIDENT OF HOUSE NO. 23,
BIRUBARI, MASJID ROAD,
BIRUBARI, PO GOPINATH NAGAR,
PS PALTAN BAZAR, GUWAHATI 781006,
DIST KAMRUP M ASSAM
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR
REPRESENTED BY PP ASSAM
2:SMTI ANJITA BAISHYA @ ANJUMAN MIR
D/O SRI DHARMESWAR BAISHYA
W/O MR. ASIF ALI MIR
RESIDENT OF DR. J.C DAS ROAD
OPP. NAMGHAR
PANBAZAR
781001 KAMRUP M ASSA
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A SARMAH, MS P DEB,
MS N DEB,MS. M DEV,
MR K K MAHANTA (Sr. Advocate),MRS. B GOGOI
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM,
MS P CHAKRABORTY,
DR. N DEKA,MS S DAS
Page No.# 2/6
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR
ORDER
Date : 17.12.2025
(M. Zothankhuma, J)
1. Heard Ms. M. Dev, learned counsel for the appellant husband and Dr. N.
Deka, learned counsel for the respondent wife.
2. The appellant has put to challenge the impugned order dated 17.02.2021,
passed in Misc. (J) Case No. 170/2014, arising out of FC (Civil) Case No.
859/2014.
3. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the appellant husband and the
respondent wife had married on 31.01.1995 and the said marriage was
thereafter registered on 13.02.2009 under the Special Marriage Act, 1954
(hereinafter referred to as the 1954 Act). Due to problems in the marriage,
which resulted in the respondent wife and their two daughters living separately,
the appellant filed an application for talak before the Sadar Kazi, Guwahati,
which was registered as Kazi Case No.30/2013. The Kazi thereafter disposed off
Kazi Case No.30/2013, by passing an order of divorce after pronouncement of 3
talaqs. As the marriage had been registered under the 1954 Act, the appellant
husband filed FC (Civil) Case No. 859/2014, praying for declaring the marriage
null and void under Section 27 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 and declaring
that the marriage certificate dated 13.02.2009, issued by the Marriage Officer,
Kamrup (M), Guwahati, was null and void. It may be stated here that
declaration of a marriage as null and void can only be made under Section 24 of
Page No.# 3/6
the 1954 Act, while a divorce can be granted under Section 27 of the 1954
Act.
4. The respondent wife, who was the opposite party in FC (Civil) Case No.
859/2014, filed a counter-claim, praying for dissolution of marriage under
Section 27 of the Special Marriage Act and also filed Misc. (J) Case No.
170/2014 under Section 37 of the said Act, praying for permanent alimony of
Rs.3 Crores, in the event of dissolution of marriage by granting decree of
divorce.
5. The Court of the Principal Judge, Family Court No-III, Kamrup (M),
Guwahati, vide judgment dated 17.02.2021, disposed of FC (Civil) Case No.
859/2014, by holding that the appellant was not entitled to get a decree of
nullity of marriage, dismissed the prayer of the appellant. On the other hand,
the learned Family Court came to a finding that the respondent wife had proved
that the appellant had treated her with cruelty. As such, the learned Family
Court granted a decree of divorce, on the basis of the counter-claim filed by the
respondent wife under Section 27 of the 1954 Act. Misc. (J) Case No. 170/2014
was also disposed of by the learned Family Court-III, Kamrup (M), Guwahati,
vide the impugned order dated 17.02.2021, by granting Rs.1 Crore as
permanent alimony to the respondent wife and the said amount was to be paid
within two months of the order.
6. The learned Family Court, while deciding the issue of permanent alimony,
had relied upon the evidence adduced in FC (Civil) Case No. 859/2014 and it
held in the impugned order dated 17.02.2021 as follows:-
Page No.# 4/6
"In the present case it appears that the opposite party husband is an
affluent person having landed property and an established business in the name
and style "Akram Business" wherein there are 51 shop houses. According to the
petitioner the monthly rent received from "Akram Business" is Rs.5,00,000/-
(Rupees Five Lakhs). The 'Akram Business" is situated at Fancy Bazar, a place
which is a prominent business hub of State of Assam, hence there is no doubt
that the opposite party is earning a handsome amount from "Akram Business".
The petitioner lived with her husband for a long period of 14 years. She is used
to live the mode of life of her husband who is undoubtedly an affluent person.
Hence, having due regard to the status of the petitioner, the mode of life she
was used to have when she lived with her husband and income of the opposite
party, I am of the considered view that the petitioner is entitled to get
permanent alimony of Rs.1,00,00,000/-(Rupees One Crores only) from the
opposite party."
7. The appellant husband, being aggrieved with the impugned order passed
in Misc. (J) Case No. 170/2014, has filed the present appeal. On the other
hand, the judgment dated 17.02.2021 passed in FC (Civil) Case No. 859/2014
has attained finality, as no appeal has been filed against the same.
8. This Court had admitted the present appeal against the impugned order
passed in Misc. (J) Case No. 170/2014, vide order dated 31.05.2023, subject to
the deposit of Rs.15 Lakh to this Court, which has been since released to the
respondent wife.
9. During the proceedings of this case, the parties have submitted their
affidavits with regard to disclosure of their assets and liabilities, in terms of the
judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Rajnesh vs. Neha & another,
reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324. The appellant has also submitted a
supplementary affidavit of disclosure of assets and liabilities, which contains
amongst other, his Income Tax Return acknowledgements for the assessment
Page No.# 5/6
years 2024-2025 and 2022-2023.
10. It may be stated here that the orders passed in FC (Civil) Case No.
859/2014 and Misc. (J) Case No. 170/2014 had been made after the decision of
the Supreme Court in the case of Rajnesh (supra), which was on 04.11.2020.
11. We have considered the impugned order passed in Misc. (J) Case No.
170/2014 and we find that the learned Family Court had made its decision
regarding payment of permanent alimony, without asking the parties to file
affidavits for disclosure of their assets and liabilities, so that an objective finding
could be made by the learned Family Court, to determine the permanent
alimony that should be paid to the respondent, to enable the respondent to
maintain the standard of living commensurate with what she enjoyed during her
marriage with the appellant, as per the law laid down by the Supreme Court in
the case of A.B. vs. J.K., reported in 2025 lNSC 1390.
12. The above being said, in the case of Rajnesh (supra), the Supreme
Court had, in their guidelines to be followed in the affidavit of disclosure of
assets and liabilities to be submitted by the parties, stated that the format may
be modified by the Court concerned, if the exigencies of a case requires the
same.
13. Keeping the above in view, we were of the view that the appellant
husband should submit his Income Tax Returns for the years 2019-2020, 2020-
2021, 2021-2022 and 2023-2024, by way of an additional affidavit before this
Page No.# 6/6
Court, in terms of the guidelines laid down in Rajnesh (supra). However, we
have been informed that the Income Tax Returns of the appellant for the year
2019-2020, 2020-2021 and 2021-2022 have been submitted by way of an
additional affidavit, which is at Page Nos. 270 to 290. However, the same is not
on the record. Registry to place the same on record.
14. List this matter on 08.01.2026.
JUDGE JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
