NO. G/5012761M RIFLEMAN/GD KUSH KUMAR vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

2026:MLHC:1077


Serial No. 63
Regular List
HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
AT SHILLONG

WP(C) No. 117 of 2026 Date of Decision: 24.09.2026


No. G/5012761M Rifleman/GD
Kush Kumar, aged about 37 years
st
S/o Rameshwar Singh, Serving at 41
Assam Rifles C/O 99 APO :::Petitioner

-Versus-

1.Union of India represented by the
Secretary to the Government of India,
Ministry of Home Affairs, North Block
New Delhi – 110001

2.The Director General Assam Rifles,
Shillong, Meghalaya

3.The Inspector General Assam Rifles
(North), HQ IGAR (North), C/O 99 APO

st
4.The Commandant 41 Assam Rifles
C/O 99 APO

5.Smti. Rinki Kumari D/O Sri Ram
Baslak Singh, Vill.- Sultanpur (South)
P.O.- Sultapur (West), Dist.- Samastipur,
:::Respondents
Bihar, Pin – 848501





1 4
Page of

2026:MLHC:1077

Coram:
Hon’ble Mr. Justice H. S. Thangkhiew, Judge

Appearance:

For the Petitioner/Appellant(s) : Mr. B. Pathak, Adv.
Ms. P. Chettri, Adv.

For the Respondent(s) : Dr. N. Mozika, DSGI with
Ms. M. Myrchiang, Adv.

i) Whether approved for reporting in Yes/No
Law journals etc.:
ii) Whether approved for publication
in press: Yes/No

JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)


1. The petitioner is before this Court with a prayer for setting aside and
quashing of the impugned order dated 30.12.2025, for deduction of
maintenance allowance @33% in favour of the respondent No. 5(wife).
Further, prayer is for consideration of the replies dated 14.04.2025 and
10.11.2025 to the show-cause notices dated 13.04.2025 and 30.09.2025
respectively.

2. Mr. B. Pathak, learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner has
submitted that the order for grant of maintenance under Section 69(i) of the
Assam Rifles Act, 2006, has been made without consideration of the show-
cause replies, and the circumstances of the writ petitioner. The learned
2 4
Page of

2026:MLHC:1077
counsel has referred to the impugned order, to show that 22% is in favour of
the wife, 5.5% for the daughter and 5.5% for the son. It is submitted that an
elder daughter is in the custody of the petitioner, and this fact has not been
taken into consideration, while passing the impugned order. In this
connection, it has been submitted that though it is not disputed that
maintenance has to be paid by the petitioner, however, he prays that the
same may be reviewed and considered by the respondents. In this
connection, the learned counsel has placed reliance on a judgment of this
Court dated 10.08.2023, passed in WP(C) No. 442 of 2022, wherein he
submits in similar circumstances, the matter was remanded back to the
authorities for consideration, by allowing the writ petitioner to submit a
fresh representation. The learned counsel therefore prays for similar
directions.

3. Dr. N. Mozika, learned DSGI assisted by Ms. M. Myrchiang, learned
counsel for the petitioner has submitted that all procedures in accordance
with law have been followed, and the petitioner had been afforded adequate
opportunity to show-cause against the proposed amount of maintenance.
The learned DSGI therefore submits that in these circumstances, no
interference is called for with the impugned order.

4. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties, it is noted that by the
impugned order dated 30.12.2025, the Grant of Maintenance has been
granted w.e.f. 04.02.2025, that is much before the show-cause notice was
3 4
Page of

2026:MLHC:1077
issued to the writ petitioner. It is also noted that this Court by order dated
07.04.2026, had suspended the deduction of arrears till the disposal of the
writ petition.

5. Looking into the circumstances of the case, especially the fact that the
elder daughter of the writ petitioner is in his custody, in line with the earlier
order passed by this Court, limited interference is called for, and the
respondents are accordingly directed to re-examine the matter after allowing
the writ petitioner to file a fresh representation. With regard to 33%
deduction, as the same is continuing, until the matter is disposed of, the
same shall not be disturbed. With regard to the arrears, the same shall be
kept in abeyance until the quantum is finally decided by the respondents.

6. Representation so allowed, shall be placed before the authorities
within 2(two) weeks, who shall dispose of the same within 4(four) weeks
thereafter.

7. As ordered above, the writ petition accordingly stands closed and
disposed of.


Judge

Meghalaya
24.09.2026
“D.Thabah-PS”

4 4
Page of

DARIHUN THABAH
Digitally signed by:
Signed On: 24-09-2026 14:38:47 IST
Verified