Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/4 vs Rijumani Kakati on 13 November, 2025
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010279902023
2025:GAU-AS:15361
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Crl.Pet./1312/2023
DHRUBA JYOTI KAKATI
S/O LATE HARIKANTA KAKATI,
R/O KHANAMUKH
DHARAPUR, P.O. AND P.S. AZARA
DIST. KAMRUP (M), ASSAM
PIN-781017
VERSUS
RIJUMANI KAKATI
W/O SRI DHRUBA JYOTI KAKATI
D/O LATE BIPIN CHANDRA DEKA,
R/O GOTANAGAR, NEAR NURSERY, MALIGAON, P.O. MALIGAON,
HEADQUARTER, P.S. JALUKBARI, GUWAHATI, DIST. KAMRUP (M), ASSAM
Advocates for the petitioner : Mr. J.M Gogoi
Advocate for the respondent: Mr. B.K Bhagawati
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA
Date of Hearing : 13.11.2025.
Date of Judgment : 13.11.2025.
Page No.# 2/4
JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)
13.11.2025
1. Heard Mr. J.M Gogoi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B.K
Bhagawati, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
2. This is an application U/S 482 of the Cr.P.C seeking quashing of the impugned order
dated 17.11.2023 whereby the Ld. Principal Judge, Family Court No. 2, Kamrup (M),
Guwahati granted an interim maintenance of Rs. 15,000/- to the respondent and her
minor child.
3. The facts of the case briefly put are that the revision petitioner and the respondent
are the legally married husband and wife and their marriage was solemnized on
13.05.2006. However, due to differences that developed between them, the
respondent along with the child started living separately from the year 2023.
4. The respondent herein, thereafter, preferred a petition before the Ld. Family Court
No. 2, Kamrup (M), Guwahati which was registered as F.C. Criminal Case No. 213 of
2023 U/S 125 of the Cr.P.C claiming maintenance of Rs. 50,000/- per month along with
interim maintenance of Rs. 20,000/- per month for herself and her daughter. A
separate application for interim maintenance was also submitted before the present
respondent before the Ld. Family Court No. 2, Kamrup (M), Guwahati as stated in the
affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent. After hearing both sides the Ld. Family
Court No. 2, Kamrup (M), Guwahati passed the following order :
"Both parties are present.
Heard both sides on the point of quantum of interim maintenance.
Page No.# 3/4
The petitioner/1t party, filed this petition U/s 125 Cr.P.C., claiming maintenance
of Rs.50,000/- (fifty thousand) per month alongwith interim maintenance of
Rs.20,000/- (twenty thousand) per month for herself and her daughter from
the opposite party/2nd party. The 1 party stated that she was subjected to
mental and physical cruelty by the 2nd party as the opposite party has
neglected and refused to maintain them in spite of having sufficient means.
The petitioner stated that she has no source of income to maintain herself and
her school going daughter. The 1% party stated that the 2nd party/opposite
party works as an LDA at Paschim Guwahati Mahavidyalaya, gets monthly
salary of Rs.63,404/-, has residential and agricultural landed properties and his
income is more than Rs.1,00,000/- per month.
The 2nd party/opposite party has filed written objection denying the averments
made in the petition save and except which are specifically admitted. The
opposite party, in his affidavit of assets and liabilities stated that he gets
monthly salary of Rs.58,000/-(fifty eight thousand) as Office Assistant at
Paschim Guwahati Mahavidyalaya and has other responsibilities to be
discharged.
Presently, the Court is dealing with the question of interim maintenance and at
this stage, it is not necessary to go into the details of the merit of the case as
the parties are yet to adduce evidence.
The petitioner stated that she has no source of income to maintain herself and
her school going daughter. Accordingly, to prevent them from vagrancy, the
2nd party/opposite party is directed to pay interim maintenance of Rs.15,000/-
(fifteen thousand) per month in total to the petitioner, i.e. Rs.10,000/-(ten
thousand) per month to the petitioner and Rs.5,000/-(five thousand) per
month for her daughter, from the date of this order, or until further order.
Fixed 21.12.2023 for payment/additional evidence of the petitioner."
5. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner submits with reference to the statements
of assets & liabilities submitted by the petitioner before the Ld. Family Court No. 2,
Kamrup (M), Guwahati that in view of the enormous liabilities that he has to incur, he
is not in a position to pay the amount of Rs. 15,000/- per month granted by the Ld.
Family Court No. 2, Kamrup (M), Guwahati as interim maintenance for his wife and
child. It is submitted with reference to the statements of assets & liabilities that the
petitioner has to pay an average of Rs. 31,476/- per month on account of a housing
loan of Rs. 15,17,000/- taken by him from State Bank of India. It is an admitted fact
that the petitioner is in receipt of Rs. 58,512/- per month as salary as on October,
2023. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent that at present he is
Page No.# 4/4
drawing a monthly salary of Rs. 72,046/-. Therefore, the petitioner is still having a
residual amount of Rs. 41,000/- per month approximately.
6. Mr. J.M Gogoi, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decision of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh V. Neha reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324 wherein
at Para 72.3 it has been observed that while deciding the quantum of maintenance,
the liabilities of the husband is also to be taken into consideration. However, even
taking into consideration the aforesaid liability of Rs. 31,476/- per month, there is
sufficient amount remaining with the petitioner which would enable him to pay the
interim maintenance of an amount of Rs. 15,000/- per month granted by the Ld. Court
below.
7. In any case, the liability incurred by the petitioner is for his own enjoyment as
admittedly his wife and child are living separately and therefore, on that plea alone
the petitioner cannot avoid paying a reasonable amount of maintenance to the
respondent and the child.
8. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid observations and on perusal of the impugned
order, I do not find any illegality, incorrectness or impropriety in the impugned order
warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its powers U/S 482 of the Cr.P.C.
9. The petition accordingly stands dismissed.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
