Md Iqbal Hussain vs Mampi Ara Begum
2025 Latest Caselaw 7009 Gua

Gauhati High Court

Md Iqbal Hussain vs Mampi Ara Begum on 4 September, 2025

                                                                          Page No.# 1/3

GAHC010112462025




                                                                   undefined

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

                                  Case No. : Crl.Rev.P./358/2025

            MD IQBAL HUSSAIN
            SON OF LATE RAIZUDDIN AHMED
            R/O HOUSE NO. 7, OPPOSITE NIZARAPAR HIGH SCHOOL,
            NIZARAPAR, P.O. AND P.S. NOONMATI, GUWAHATI-781020,
            DIST. KAMRUP (M), ASSAM



            VERSUS

            MAMPI ARA BEGUM
            W/O MD. IQBAL HUSSAIN
            D/O HAREJ ALI
            R/O HOUSE NO. 1, NIZARAPAR
            NEAR MASJID, P.O. AND P.S. NOONMATI, GUWAHATI-781020, DIST.
            KAMRUP (M), ASSAM



Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR. B CHOWDHURY, MR. M. ALOM,MR. S R ISLAM

Advocate for the Respondent : ,




                                   BEFORE
                    HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA

                                            ORDER

Date : --04.09.2025

Heard Mr. B. Chowdhury, the learned counsel for the petitioner.

Page No.# 2/3

2. This is an application u/s 438/442 read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 against the impugned Judgment & Order dated 24.04.2025 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court No. 1, Kamrup (M), Guwahati in F.C.(Crl) Case No. 17/2022 directing the petitioner to pay Rs. 15,000/- per month to the respondent/wife and Rs. 6,000/- to his minor daughter, thus total amount of Rs. 21,000/- per month with effect from the date of filing of the petition.

3. Issue Notice to the respondent through registered post with A/D as well as usual process.

4. Also call for the scanned copy of the TCR.

5. Mr. Choudhury further submitted that the respondent is not entitled for any maintenance as she has voluntarily left her matrimonial house and in spite of several efforts made by the petitioner she did not return to her matrimonial house and hence, she is not entitled for any maintenance as per provision of Section 125(4) Cr.PC. More so, from the evidence of PW-2/the mother of the respondent also reveals that they did not lodge any FIR to the allegation of physical torture as brought by respondent. He further submitted that respondent is an educated lady and in spite of that she is claiming maintenance though she has every capability of earning. Mr. Chowdhury further submitted that he is however ready to pay Rs. 6,000/- towards maintenance of his daughter. But, the order of maintenance towards the wife of the petitioner may be stayed till disposal of the same case.

6. Considering the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner, I have also perused the case records and the other annexures filed with the petition.

Page No.# 3/3

7. Considering all the aspects of the case, the petitioner is hereby directed to pay Rs. 15,000/- per month as a whole towards maintenance of the respondent as well as her daughter, till the next date of listing.

8. List the matter accordingly after 4 (four) weeks, as on a date to be fixed by the Registry.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant