Page No.# 1/3
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
1:RAJESH KUMAR ROY
S/O SHRI SUSHIL KUMAR ROY
R/O AKASHI NAGAR
NEAR SAIKIA BAKERY
1:BIBHA RANI DAS @ ROY
D/O SHRI KHUTI RAM DAS
W/O SHRI RAJESH KUMAR ROY
DIST. KAMRUP (ASSAM)
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. R M DAS
Advocate for the Respondent : PP
Page No.# 2/3
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT BORTHAKUR
Date : 13-03-2020
Heard Mr. K Munir, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. HK Sharma, learned
counsel for the respondent.
This interlocutory application is filed praying for vacation/ alteration and/ or modification of
the interim order, dated 06.06.2018, passed by this Court in Criminal Revision Petition No.
169/2018 reducing the maintenance amount from Rs.25,000/- to Rs.10,000/- , per month ,
payable by the petitioner to the respondent/ his wife.
The petitioner’s case, in a nutshell, is that in F.C. (Crl.) Case No.252/2016, filed by the
respondent, the learned Family Court No.1, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati, by final order, dated
26.04.2008, he was directed to pay Rs.25,000/- towards her maintenance, per month, under
Section 125 Cr.P.C.. The aforesaid amount of Rs.25,000/- has been reduced, in the interim, to
Rs.10,000/-, per month, by order, dated 06.06.2018, passed in Criminal Revision Petition
No.169/2018. However, in the meantime, as he has lost his job of Aircraft Maintenance Engineer of
Indigo Airlines, he is not in a position to pay the aforesaid interim maintenance for having no
source of income. According to the petitioner, as the respondent is an Advocate by profession, she
has sufficient source of income to maintain herself.
It may pertinently be mentioned that the second proviso to Section 125 Cr.P.C. invests the
Magistrate with the power to grant maintenance pendent lite, on just ground and as such order
remains in force till final decision in the proceeding.
In the instant matter, it appears that this Court by order, dated 06.06.2018, passed in
Criminal Revision petition No.169/2018 directed the petitioner to pay Rs.10,000/- , per month, till
the returnable date, which has been extended from time to time. It is noticed that the learned trial
court in its impugned final order, determined the maintenance amount after adjudication and
consideration of sufficiency/ insufficiency of source of income of both the parties as well as the
obligation to pay maintenance on the part of the petitioner to the respondent/ wife at a rate which
is even less than 50% of the awarded amount. The petitioner has not pleaded his ill-health
Page No.# 3/3
rendering him in capable of earning money to provide maintenance to his wife. Therefore, the
petitioner cannot escape his obligation in this regard on the ground of loss of job.
For the above stated reasons, the interlocutory application stands dismissed.
The interlocutory application stands disposed off.