Page No.# 1/6 vs Sutapa Dey And Anr on 10 March, 2026

                                                                       Page No.# 1/6

GAHC010187552023




                                                                 2026:GAU-AS:3518

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

                                 Case No. : Crl.Pet./896/2023

            UTPAL DEY
            S/O LT. JYOTINDRA CH. DEY
            R/O HOUSE NO. 19, BYE LANE 3, JOYMATI NAGAR, GUWAHATI-12,
            P.S. JALUKBARI,
            DIST. KAMRUP (M), ASSAM

            VERSUS

            SUTAPA DEY AND ANR
            D/OLATE KETAKI RANJAN DEY
            HOUSE NO. 31, BYE LANE NO. 2
            SHREE NAGAR, GUWAHATI-06,
            P.S. DISPUR,
            DIST. KAMRUP (M), ASSAM
            PH. NO. 8473026566 (M)

            2:THE STATE OF ASSAM
             REP. BY THE PP
            ASSAM

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR. K KALITA, MRS. M. BARUAH BHUYAN

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR. U K GOSWAMI (R-1)


                                      BEFORE
                       HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA


                                          ORDER

Date : 10.03.2026.

Page No.# 2/6

Heard Mr. K. Kalita, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. U.K. Goswami, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 and Mr. P. Borthakur, learned Addl. P.P., Assam appearing on behalf of the State respondent No.2.

This is an application under Section 482 read with Section 397 of the CrPC, against the impugned order dated 01.08.2023, passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court No.II, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati in F.C. (Crl.) No.327/2022, directing the petitioner to pay interim maintenance @ Rs.7,000/- per month.

It is submitted by Mr. Kalita, the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner and the respondent No.1 got married in the year 2015 and initially the case was also registered before the Marriage Officer, Kamrup (Metro) at Guwahat on 29.09.2015 and thereafter, the marriage was also solemnized socially. A male child was also born out of their wedlock and on 25.07.2016, after the birth of the child, the respondent No.1 willfully deserted the petitioner and since January, 2017 and without any valid reason, she started to live in her parental home along with her minor child. Thereafter, the petitioner also filed a petition for restitution of their conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and the case is still pending in the Court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court No.II, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati. After institution of the said case of restitution of conjugal rights, the petitioner filed a case seeking maintenance from the present petitioner.

While filing the present application, the respondent had stated that the petitioner had monthly income of Rs.30,000/- without any supporting document. On the other hand, at the time of filing the assets and liabilities along with the written objection, the petitioner had filed his salary certificate which is a Page No.# 3/6

computer generated copy, according to which the petitioner is earning salary of Rs. 19,000/- per month from the company, where he works. The assets and liabilities were submitted on oath with an affidavit wherein he stated his monthly salary as Rs.19,000/-. Apart from that, at the time of filing his written objection, he also raised the issue that the name of his child, as per the birth certificate was "Dipankar Dey" but the respondent No.1 mentioned in her petition, the name of the child as "Utkarsh Dey", who is not known to the petitioner, for which the petitioner also prayed for a direction to the respondent No.1 to furnish the birth certificate in respect of said Utkarsh Dey, for which who is claimed to be the son of the present petitioner. But without considering all these aspects of the case and even not considering the monthly salary of the present petitioner, the learned Principal Judge, Family Court No.II, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati has passed the order of monthly maintenance only on the verbal submission made by the respondent No.1, considering his monthly income as Rs.30,000/-.

Accordingly, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the interim order of maintenance which has already been passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court No.II, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati, directing him to pay Rs.7,000/- per month is liable to be set aside and quashed and the learned Trial Court may be directed to hear both the parties on assets and liabilities and also in respect of the name of the child, as brought by the respondent. However, he submitted that being his wife and child, the petitioner is always duty bound to pay maintenance to them but he is not in a position to pay maintenance @ Rs.7,000/- per month, out of his income of Rs.19,000/- per month.

Page No.# 4/6

Mr. Goswami, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 submitted in this regard that learned Principal Judge, Family Court No.II, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati has rightly passed the order of maintenance and there cannot be any reason for interference by this Court. He further submitted that admittedly the name of the child was Dipankar Dey at the time of issuing the birth certificate but as per some Hindu rituals and all, the child was admitted in the school with name Utkarsh Dey. Further, the learned counsel further submitted that though the respondent No.1 could not submit any documentary evidence in regards to income of the present petitioner, but it was from her belief she stated that the petitioner is earning Rs.30,000/- per month, as told by the petitioner himself during their conjugal life. The learned counsel for the respondent No.1 further submitted that the child has already admitted in the school and the respondent No.1 is not in a position to maintain herself along with the child, with a meager amount of Rs.7,000/- per month, which has already been granted by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court No.II, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati, towards interim maintenance. He further submitted that the respondent had already brought all the reasons in her petition as to why she had to leave her matrimonial home along with her new born child. Accordingly, the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 submitted that there may not be any interference in the order passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court No.II, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati, towards the interim maintenance.

Hearing the submissions of learned counsel for both sides, I have also perused the records and annexure filed along with the present criminal petition.

It is an admitted fact that the respondent No.1 is staying in her parental house, leaving her matrimonial house after the birth of the child. Both the parties have Page No.# 5/6

also filed their assets and liabilities along with their petition as well as with written statement/written objection, wherein it is stated that the monthly income of the present petitioner is Rs.30,000/- per month, while submitting her assets and liabilities by the respondent No.1. On the other hand, it is the claim of the petitioner that he is earning Rs.19,000/- per month and to that effect, he also produced his salary slip, which is a computer generated copy.

After hearing the submissions of learned counsel for both sides, it cannot be believed that the respondent No.1 will seek for maintenance for any other child, leaving her own child who is Dipankar Dey as per the birth certificate. However, at present, the name of the child is stated to be Utkarsh Dey and in that regard, the learned Trial Court below may consider this aspect and pass an appropriate order to that regard.

Coming to the amount of maintenance granted to the respondent No.1, it is seen that considering the monthly income of the petitioner as Rs.30,000/-, the interim maintenance was granted towards Rs.7,000/- per month but considering all other aspects of the case including the salary certificate issued by the company and produced by the petitioner at the time of filing his assets and liabilities on affidavit, I find that slight modification of the order may be passed.

In view of this, the impugned order dated 01.08.2023, passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court No.II, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati in F.C. (Crl.) No.327/2022, is hereby slightly modified to the extent that the petitioner will pay interim maintenance @ Rs.5,000/- per month, till the disposal of the said maintenance application with further direction to dispose of the matter, within a short possible time, preferably within three (3) months, from the date of this Page No.# 6/6

order.

With the above observation and modification, the present criminal petition stands disposed of.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant