Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/4 vs Khudeja Khatun on 29 October, 2025
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010081632023
2025:GAU-AS:14489
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Crl.Rev.P./549/2023
HABIBUR RAHMAN
S/O LATE JAMAR ALI, R/O VILL.-DAKHIN DABONDIA, MOUZA-TITAPANI,
P.S. KALGACHIYA, DIST.-BARPETA, ASSAM.
VERSUS
KHUDEJA KHATUN
D/O LATE SAMSUL HAQUE, R/O VILL.-KAWADI SONAIKHOLA, P.S.-
MANIKPUR, DIST.-BONGAIGAON, ASSAM, PIN-783391.
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M U MAHMUD,
Advocate for the Respondent : MR. S DEY,
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRANJAL DAS
ORDER
29.10.2025
Heard Mr. M.U. Mahmud, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr.
S. Dey, learned counsel for the respondent.
Page No.# 2/4
2. The petitioner was a second party in the proceeding before the learned
Family Court at Barpeta and has assailed the judgment dated 02.11.2022
passed by the learned Family Court at Barpeta in F.C. (Crl.) No. 580/2021,
whereby, allowing the maintenance petition of the respondent/first party, the
learned Court has directed the petitioner to pay Rs.3,000/- per month to the
respondent and Rs.1,000/- per month to each of the minor child of the parties
from the date of the filing of the petition.
3. The scanned case record has been received.
4. During the proceeding before the learned Family Court, though the
petitioner as second party filed his income affidavit in terms of Rajnesh Vs.
Neha & Anr., reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324, but the income affidavit of the
respondent/first party was stated to be not filed.
5. During the proceeding, one witness each was examined by the both the
sides i.e. the parties themselves as PW-1 and DW-1 respectively. Though the
petitioner as a second party had filed the income affidavit as mentioned above
but he stated therein that he was bereft of income and as far as property
ownership is concerned, he stated in para G-1 that he owns 1 ½ bighas of land
for residence.
6. On the basis of the testimony of the first party including her cross-
examination, the learned Family Court found the entitlement of the respondent
and her children for maintenance. As far as the quantum is concerned, the
learned Family Court has referred to his ownership of some landed property and
granted the maintenance amount as already indicated above.
7. During the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits
that the petitioner is willing to pay the maintenance amount which has been
Page No.# 3/4
granted to two minor children.
8. In this backdrop, learned counsel for the respondent submits that so far,
the petitioner has not paid any maintenance either to the wife or the children.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that while he is agreeable to
making the payment of Rs.2,000/- to the children but he is not agreeable to
payment of Rs.3,000/- in favour of the wife and that he contests the same
mainly on the ground that she did not filed her affidavit.
9. The learned counsel for the respondent referring to the para 72.9 of
Rajnesh Vs. Neha & Anr., (supra) submits that it has been laid down there in
that for categories belonging to BPL (Below Poverty Line) or casual workers,
income affidavit would be dispensed with. However, from the record, this Court
could not filed materials regarding any application in that regard or any order
dispensing with the affidavit. However, it is an admitted position that the income
affidavit of the 1st party/wife was not available for the purpose of this
adjudication.
10. The learned counsel for the petitioner side has also relied upon decision of
this Court rendered in the case of Ratan Dutta Vs. Sunita Dutta in Crl. Pet
No. 120/2024, where the matter was remanded back, as the income affidavits
of the parties were not before the Court.
11. In the given facts and circumstances, the maintenance of amount of
Rs.2,000/- granted for the upkeep of the son and the daughter of the parties @
of Rs. 2,000/- per month is hereby upheld and confirmed. In terms of the
principles laid down in the case of Rajnesh Vs. Neha & Anr., (supra), the said
maintenance amount is required to be paid from the date of filing the petition
Page No.# 4/4
before the learned Family Court.
12. As far as the maintenance amount in favour of the wife as respondent is
concerned, the matter is hereby remanded back to the learned Family Court,
Barpeta and the learned Family Court shall give an opportunity to the
respondent wife to submit her income affidavit, which shall be filed and
thereafter, taking the same into account shall be pleased to pass fresh
judgment/order regarding her claim for maintenance. The learned Family Court
shall endeavour to carry out the aforesaid exercise, preferrably within 3(three)
months.
13. The Instant criminal Revision petition is partly allowed and disposed of
on the aforesaid terms.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
