Gauhati High Court
Mokshed Ali vs Amina Begum on 20 February, 2025
Author: Parthivjyoti Saikia
Bench: Parthivjyoti Saikia
Page No.# 1/3
GAHC010089872022
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Crl.Rev.P./219/2022
MOKSHED ALI
S/O LATE PANDIT ALI
R/O GANDHINAGAR
W/NO. 5, BARPETA TOWN,
P.O.AND DIST. BARPETA, ASSAM, PIN-781301
PERMANENT RESIDENT OF VILL- KURIHA, P.O. KAYAKUCHI
DIST. BARPETA, ASSAM
VERSUS
AMINA BEGUM
W/O MOKSHED ALI
R/O VILL- KURIHA,
MOUZA- BETBARI, P.O. KAYAKUCHI,
DIST. BARPETA, ASSAM,
PIN-781352
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A R SIKDAR, M M ZAMAN,MD A ALI
Advocate for the Respondent : MR. R ALI, H A AHMED
Page No.# 2/3
:: BEFORE ::
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA
O R D E R
20.02.2025
Heard Mr. A.R. Sikdar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also
heard Mr. R. Ali, the learned counsel representing the sole respondent.
2. This is an application under Section 401 of the Code Criminal Procedure, 1973
read with Section 482 of the said Code and Article 227 of the Constitution of India
whereby the judgment dated 06.04.2022 passed by the learned Principal Judge,
Family Court, Barpeta in F.C. (Crl.) No.43/2019 is under challenge.
3. The 51 year old wife of the 62 year old petitioner filed an application under
Section 125 of the CrPC seeking maintenance. The trial court directed the petitioner to
pay maintenance of ₹7,000/- per month to his wife.
4. Now, the present petitioner has come to this Court stating that ₹7,000/- per
month is on a higher side and considering his monthly income of ₹20,000/-, he finds it
difficult to pay ₹7,000/- to his estranged wife.
5. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel of both sides.
6. Mr. Ali, the learned counsel representing the opposite party has submitted that
the petitioner is married the sister of his wife and that is the reason why the wife left
the company of the petitioner.
7. Mr. Sikdar, on the other hand, submitted that the opposite party is accompanying
his property and for that matter, he has been residing in a rented house. Mr. Sikdar
submits that with his pension of ₹20,000/- per month, he has to look after his 5 family
members.
Page No.# 3/3
8. I have given by anxious considerations to the submissions made by the learned
counsel of both sides.
9. It appears that the learned trial court did not consider the ratio laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh vs. Neha and Another, reported in (2021) 2 SCC
324.
10. Mr. Ali prays for remanding the matter to the trial court.
11. This Court is of the opinion that considering the age group of the petitioner, this
proceeding does not deserve to be stretched any further.
12. After considering all facts related to the case, the impugned judgment stands
modified. Instead of ₹7,000/- per month, the petitioner shall pay an amount of
₹5,000/- per month, as maintenance, to the opposite party i.e. his wife.
With the aforesaid direction, the criminal petition is disposed of accordingly.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
