Ali Md. Zaied Alshid vs Musstt. Babita Khatun
2025 Latest Caselaw 7278 Gua

Gauhati High Court

Ali Md. Zaied Alshid vs Musstt. Babita Khatun on 15 September, 2025

                                                                        Page No.# 1/14

GAHC010010642013




                                                                undefined

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

                               Case No. : Crl.Rev.P./363/2013

             ALI MD. ZAIED ALSHID
             S/O KHORSED ALI R/O VILL- SALBARI, BAPUJI NAGAR P.O. BALADMARI,
             P.S. GOALPARA, DIST. GOALPARA, ASSAM.



             VERSUS

             MUSSTT. BABITA KHATUN
             D/O MOKBUL HUSSAIN R/O VILL- SALBARI, BAPUJI NAGAR, P.S.
             BALADMARI, P.S. GOALPARA, DIST. GOALPARA, ASSAM.



Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR.M H TALUKDAR, MR.A KALAM,MR.A AHMED,MR.A R
SIKDAR

Advocate for the Respondent : , ,,




                                   BEFORE
                  HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR

                                         JUDGMENT

Date : 15-09-2025

Heard Mr. A.R. Sikdar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also none has appeared on behalf of the sole respondent.

2. The present revision petition has been instituted, by the petitioner, Page No.# 2/14

herein assailing the judgment and order dated 18.06.2012 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Goalpara, in C.M. No. 47/2010.

3. The facts leading to the institution of the present Criminal Revision Petition is noticed as under:-

The sole respondent, herein, as petitioner had instituted a proceeding, invoking the provisions of Section 3(1) of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act 1986, before the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Goalpara, praying for maintenance as well as for payment of the deferred Mohr amount and also for returning the properties mentioned in the list attached thereto. The opposite party had also prayed for grant of future maintenance i.e. for the post Iddat period. The said proceeding was registered as M.C.R No. 355/2009.

The learned trial Court on consideration of the matter was pleased vide judgment and order dated 26.07.2010, to dispose of the said application, inter alia, rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for the maintenance during the Iddat period as well as for the post Iddat period from the petitioner, herein.

The respondent herein was held to be entitled only to receive non-paid portion of the deferred Mohr amount, from the petitioner, herein.

4. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order dated 26.07.2010 passed by the Trial Court, the respondent, herein, assailed the same by way of filing a Criminal Revision Petition before the Court of Sessions Judge, Goalpara. The said proceeding was registered as C.M. No.47/2010. The Revisional Court upon considering the matter was pleased vide order dated 07.03.2011 to dispose of the same, inter alia, with a direction to the petitioner, herein, to provide a sum of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand) Page No.# 3/14

only per-month to the respondent, herein, for the Iddat period of 4 (four) months and thereafter for the post Iddat period to pay a sum of Rs.1000/- (Rupees One Thousand) only per-month, to the respondent, till she is re- married. The petitioner was also directed to pay to the respondent, herein, the deferred Mohr amount of Rs.24,801/- (Rupees Twenty Four Thousand Eight Hundred and One) only.

Being aggrieved, with the said decision of the revisional Court, the present petitioner approached this Court, assailing the same, by way of instituting Criminal Revision Petition 196/2011.

5. A Coordinate Bench of this Court vide judgment and order dated 17.12.2011, was pleased to dispose of the said Criminal Revision Petition, inter alia, by requiring the Court of the learned Sessions Judge, Goalpara to assess and determine the amount of reasonable and fair provision to be paid by the petitioner, herein, to the opposite party for her future maintenance and thereafter, to determine whether the said amount should be paid at a time or in installments, which was provided to be permissible to be made on monthly basis. The direction of the learned Sessions Judge vide the judgment and order dated 07.03.2011, for payment of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand) only per-month to the respondent therein for the post Iddat period was interfered with.

6. Accordingly, in terms of the direction passed by this Court vide the said judgment and order dated 17.12.2011, the matter was reconsidered by the Sessions Judge, Goalpara in C.M. Case No. 47/2010 and vide judgment and order dated 18.06.2012, was pleased to determine Page No.# 4/14

Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs) only as the fair and reasonable provision for future maintenance of the respondent, herein, till the time she is remarried.

7. The learned Sessions Judge also made necessary direction with regard to the return of the dowry articles and/or for payment of equivalent amount thereon, if the same is not so returned. Having determined the fair and reasonable provision for future maintenance of the respondent herein, the learned Sessions Judge, had also provided that the same would be cleared by the petitioner, herein, in 8 (eight) equal monthly installments.

8. Being aggrieved with the said judgment and order dated 18.06.2012, the present petitioner has instituted the present proceeding assailing the same.

9. Mr. A.R. Sikdar, learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset has submitted that the learned trial Court while proceeding to ascertain the reasonable and fair provision required to be made for the future maintenance of the respondent, herein, had not considered the evidences coming on record in the matter in its proper perspective. He submits that the determination of the fair and reasonable amount at Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh), so made by the learned Sessions Judge, has been so made without appreciating the evidence of the petitioner, herein, which if so appreciated, would have brought to the forefront that the petitioner was only working as a daily labour and he was not in a position to provide for the said amount for the future maintenance of the respondent, herein.

Page No.# 5/14

10. Mr. A.R. Sikdar, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner herein had in his evidence brought on record the fact that he was earning by plying a vehicle and did not have any motor part shop as alleged by the respondent, herein.

11. Mr. A.R. Sikdar, learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that in terms of the direction passed by this Court vide order dated 03.10.2013, in the present proceeding, the petitioner has already deposited 3 (three) installments out of the 8 (eight) installments, as directed to be made by the Sessions Judge vide the impugned judgment and order dated 18.06.2012.

12. In the above premises, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the determination of the fair and reasonable amount for future maintenance of the sole respondent as made by the impugned judgment and order dated 18.06.2012 by the learned Sessions Judge, Goalpara would mandate an interference from this Court.

13. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

14. At the outset, it is to be noted that although the notice in the matter was served upon the respondent herein, there is no representation on behalf of the sole respondent in the matter.

As it is noticed, hereinabove, the respondent, herein, had instituted the proceeding before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Goalpara, under the provision of Section 3(1) of the Muslim Women (Protection of Page No.# 6/14

Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 inter alia, praying for maintenance to be paid to her during the Iddat period of 4 (four) months, payment of the agreed amount of Mohr, release of the properties received by her during her marriage and for release of an amount by the petitioner herein, per-month to her for maintenance for the post Iddat period.

15. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Goalpara on considering the issues arising in the matter was pleased vide judgment and order dated 26.07.2010 to reject the prayer of the respondent, herein, for maintenance during the Iddat period by holding that the Iddat period had already expired. The learned trial Court further with regard to the claim of the respondent, herein, for being released the unpaid amount of Mohr, proceeded to hold that the respondent, herein, is entitled to get an amount of Rs.24,801/- (Rupees Twenty Four Thousand Eight Hundred and One) only, being the deferred Mohr amount.

With regard to the claim of the petitioner for being released the materials received by her during marriage and which were taken to the house of the petitioner herein, the learned trial Court rejected the said prayer of the petitioner. As regards the prayer of the petitioner for being paid an amount of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) per-month as future maintenance, the learned trial Court on consideration of the matter held that the respondent, herein, is not entitled to maintenance for the post Iddat period.

16. The respondent, herein, being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 26.07.2010 passed by the learned trial Court assailed the same by way of instituting revision petition before the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Goalpara. The said proceeding was registered as C.M. No.47/2010.

Page No.# 7/14

The learned Sessions Judge vide judgment and order dated 07.03.2011 on consideration of the issues arising in the matter proceeded to dispose of the said revision petition by directing that the respondent, herein, would be entitled to an amount of Rs.2,000/- (Rupee Two Thousand) only for the Iddat period of 4 (four) months. Further by noticing that the respondent although divorced had not remarried and the petitioner, herein, had not made any reasonable provision, the petitioner herein was directed to pay a sum of Rs.1000/- (Rupees One Thousand) only per-month to the respondent herein, till she is remarried, after the Iddat period. The said direction were in addition to the direction passed by the learned trial Court that the respondent, herein, would be entitled to be paid the deferred Mohr amount of Rs.24,801 (Rupees Twenty Four Thousand Eight Hundred and One) only.

17. The petitioner, herein, being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 07.03.2011 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Goalpara in C.M. No.47/2010, assailed the same before this Court by way of instituting a Criminal Revision Petition being Crl.Rev.P. 196/2011.

18. The Coordinate Bench of this Court upon considering the issues arising in the matter was pleased vide order dated 17.12.2011 to dispose of the said revision petition by remanding the matter back to the learned Sessions Judge, Goalpara to assess and determine the amount of reasonable and fair provision to be made by the petitioner to the respondent, herein, for her future maintenance and thereafter to determine whether the said amount should be paid at a time or in installments, which was also provided to be permissible on monthly basis.

Page No.# 8/14

19. The conclusion drawn by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide the judgment and order dated 17.12.2011 being relevant, is extracted here under:-

"26. From a perusal of the evidence on record including the evidence pertaining to the financial condition of the petitioner and the Opp. Party, I do not find that the learned court below acted illegally or improperly in directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 2000/- per month to the Opp. Party as maintenance for the iddat period. The said direction is hereby affirmed.

27. But no finding has been recorded regarding the entitlement of the Opp. Party to recover the goods claimed by her. It is seen that the Opp. Party has led evidence in this regard, which is supported by the other two witnesses. Therefore, the learned Magistrate was not justified in deciding that point against the Opp. Party and the learned Sessions Judge also did not address the issue. In such matters, the court is required to take a prima facie view only and pass orders on prima facie satisfaction. It is not necessary for the court to go into the dispute in minute details. Considering the above, on this issue, the matter is remanded back to the learned Sessions Judge to pass appropriate orders consistent with the observations made above.

28. Coming to the direction that the petitioner should pay a sum of Rs. 12 1000/- per month to the Opp. Party till she remarried, considering the discussions made above and also the fact that the learned court below did not fix any amount as reasonable and fair provision which amount could be realized either as a one time payment or in installments, the above direction to pay Rs. 1000/- per month after the iddat period till she remarried cannot be sustained and is accordingly interfered with. On this point, the matter is remanded back to the learned Sessions Judge, Goalpara to assess and determine the amount of reasonable and fair provision to be paid by the petitioner to the Opp. Party and thereafter to determine whether the said amount should be paid at a time or in installments, which can also be on monthly basis. If the evidence of the petitioner and the Opp. Party are found to be in adequate in this regard, the learned Sessions Judge will take their further evidence. Needless to say, while determining the reasonable and fair provision, the learned Sessions Judge will take into consideration the needs of the Opp. Party, the standard of life that she was used to during her marriage with the petitioner and the means of the petitioner. The learned Sessions Judge will pass the order on remand as expeditiously as possible."

Page No.# 9/14

20. On perusal of the said conclusion drawn by this Court in the said judgment and order dated 17.12.2011, it is found that while remanding the matter, this Court had also provided that if the evidence of the parties are found to be inadequate for determination of the amount of reasonable and fair provision to be paid by the petitioner, herein, to the respondent, the learned Sessions Judge was at liberty to take their further evidence. It was also provided that the learned Sessions Judge while determining the reasonable and fair provision shall also take into consideration the needs of the respondent herein, the standard of life that she was used to during her marriage with the petitioner, herein, and the means of the petitioner.

21. On the matter being remanded, the learned Sessions Judge, Goalpara had proceeded to re-consider the same after hearing the learned counsel for the parties herein. On such reconsideration, the learned Sessions Judge, vide the order dated 18.06.2012 disposed of the said revision petition by determining the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs) only as the fair and reasonable provisions for the future maintenance of the respondent herein, till she is remarried. Further the said amount was directed to be paid by the petitioner herein, in 8 (eight) equal monthly installments.

With regard to the articles that the respondent herein, had taken to the house of the petitioner after marriage, the learned Sessions Judge passed a direction to the petitioner herein to return back all the said articles and if such articles would not be returned, then to pay equivalent amount thereof, to the respondent, herein.

22. The learned Sessions Judge for the purpose of determining the fair Page No.# 10/14

and reasonable provision for future maintenance of the respondent, herein, had drawn the following conclusion:-

"6. Now, this Court is in seisn with the matter as to the determination of reasonable and fair provision for the revision peitioner Babita Khatun. To meet this issue, I have directed my attention to the evidence on record. The revision petitioner/1st Party in MCR Case No.355/09 has led evidence that score. According to her, her husband is an owner of a vehicle and apart from that, he is having a motor parts shop wherefrom he has a constant and stable income of Rs.10,000/- to Rs.15,000/- per month. She is now living in her parental house with her child and with much difficult she has been maintaining herself. It is an admitted fact that no documentary evidence is led in support of the plea that the Opp. Party was having a vehicle and also possessed one motor parts shop. Still then, the evidence on record remains consistent on this matter. Though it was denied by the Opp. Party that he was having any motor parts shop or was earning by plying a vehicle, but he leads to evidence to rebut the claim of the petitioner. Even otherwise the evidence of PW-2 Abul Hussain clinches this issue in favour of the revision petitioner. In his evidence, he very categorically states that the Opp. Party is the owner of a vehicle from which he has a constant income and he also runs a motor parts selling shop. On the other hand, the revision petitioner has no source of her income. The Opp. Party has a sable and sufficient income. This witness is an independent witness. He is not related to any side and he is the resident of the said place wherefrom the Opp. Party hails. No effective cross examination was done in respect of this witness. His evidence remains in impact on this matter. Not a single suggestion was given to him that he is deposing falsely or has no knowledge about the source of income of the Opp.

-Party. Though the Opp. Party examined himself as DW-1, but his evidence is not at all believable on the point that he earns only Rs.22/- per month by working in a shop. It is an admitted fact that income of a person is personal asset and the other party can not be expected to prove the same by leading evidences the person is not a salaried person. In this case, the revision petitioner, being the wife of the Opp. Party at one time must have the knowledge what her husband has been doing and when she says with full emphasis that her husband earns by plying a vehicle and also owns a motor parts shop, Her evidence will be given due weightage. If the other party was honest enough, he could have very easily rebutted this stand so taken by the revision petitioner by examining the person under whom he is employed. But, no witness is examined to buttress this point. It may be noted at this stage that though revision petitioner in her maintenance petition claims that the monthly income of the Opp. Party was not less than Rs.50,000/-, but in her evidence as PW-1, the revision petitioner states that her husband earns about rs. 10,000/- to Rs.15,000/- per month and her evidence suffers from no infirmity on this score and it is quite believable. If we go by the lower scale of this amount, it stands at Rs.10,000/- per month and it is a reasonable amount a person is expected to earn through plying a vehicle as well as Page No.# 11/14

running a motor parts selling shop. Thus, his annual income will stand at Rs.1,20,000/-. Now, he is having his second wife and child. So, he is to look after their well being and needs. But, the fact can not be lost sight of that the revision petitioner was her divorced wife and it is his solemn duty to provide fair and reasonable provision for her so that she can live in dignity commensurate with the standard of life she was used to at the time when she was in the conjugal life the Opp. Party. Hence, having taken into account all these aspects of the matter, this court is of the opinion that a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-may be assessed as the fair and reasonable provision for future maintenance of the revision petitioner till the time she is remarried. Hence, this amount is assessed by this court which is based upon the available evidence on record keeping in view the lifestyle, standard of living and their social status."

23. A perusal of the said conclusion of the learned Sessions Judge would go to reveal that the learned Sessions Judge had considered the evidence brought on record by the parties during the trial of the matter before the learned CJM, Goalpara. The learned Sessions Judge by noticing the evidence coming on record during the trial with regard to the monthly income of the petitioner, herein, which was projected to be in the range of Rs.10,000/- to Rs.15,000/- per-month, by plying vehicle as well as running a motor part shop, determined the same at the lower stage i.e., Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) only per-month. The learned Sessions Judge also proceeded to note that the petitioner was also having a second wife and child and was required to look after the well being also. Thereafter, holding that it is the duty of the petitioner, herein, to provide for a fair and reasonable provision for future maintenance of the respondent, herein, so as to ensure that she can live with dignity commensurating to the standard of life she was used to at the time when she was living conjugal life with the petitioner, herein, proceeded to determine an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs) only as the fair and reasonable provision required to be made for future maintenance of the respondent, herein till she is re-married.

Page No.# 12/14

24. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the basis for determination of the fair and reasonable provision for the future maintenance of the respondent, herein, by the petitioner, herein, was so arrived at by the learned Tribunal without considering the means of the petitioner, herein, and in this connection has relied upon a certificate issued by one Jayanta Kakati wherein, it would certified that the petitioner was working with him as a driver and was being paid Rs.3,000/- per-month. The said contention is noticed only to be rejected, inasmuch as, this Court vide Judgment and order dated 17.12.2011 in Crl.Rev.P. 196/2011, while remanding back the matter to the learned Sessions Judge had also provided that it was permissible for the learned Sessions Judge to take further evidence, in the event, the evidence of the petitioner and the opposite party were found not to be adequate for the determination of the amount towards reasonable and fair provision for future maintenance of the petitioner, herein. A perusal of the judgment and order dated 18.06.2012 would go to reveal that the learned Sessions Judge had required the parties to the proceeding to adduce further evidence. However, the parties had agreed to the point that there was sufficient evidence on record on the basis of which the Court can assess and determine the amount of reasonable and fair provision to be made for future maintenance of the respondent herein, as directed by this Court, and there was no need for taking any further evidence.

25. In view of the above position, the learned Sessions Judge having drawing his conclusion in the matter basing on the evidence coming on record, this Court is of the considered view that reliance placed by the petitioner on the said certificate dated 16.01.2013 for projecting his monthly income would be of no consequence.

Page No.# 13/14

26. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered view that the determination by the learned Sessions Judge vide judgment and order dated 18.06.2012 towards the amount required to be determined for providing fair and reasonable provision for the future maintenance of the petitioner herein, is a reasonable one and is also based on the evidence coming on record before the trial Court.

27. Accordingly, the said conclusion drawn by the learned Sessions Judge vide judgment and order dated 18.06.2012 would not mandate any interference. The petitioner in terms of the direction passed by this Court vide order dated 03.10.2013 in the present proceeding having already deposited 3 (three) installments out of the 8 (eight) installments directed by the learned Sessions Judge vide the impugned judgment, the petitioner shall w.e.f. 01.10.2025 proceed to pay to the respondent herein the remaining 5 (five) installments and thereby within 5 (five) months w.e.f. 01.10.2025 shall pay the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- to the respondent, herein. The said payment shall be monitored by the learned CJM, Goalpara.

28. The petitioner shall also comply with the direction for returning all the articles brought by the respondent, herein, at the time of her marriage to the house of the petitioner, herein and in the event, the said articles are not so returned, the equivalent amount thereof be released to the respondent, herein, within a period of 2 (two) months from today. The said aspect of the matter will also be monitored by the learned CJM, Goalpara.

29. With the above observation and direction, the Criminal Revision Page No.# 14/14

Petition stands disposed of. There would be no order as to costs.

30. Registry to send down the original case records along with a copy of this order to the Court of learned CJM, Goalpara for information and necessary action.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant