Facts
The Petitioner (husband) and Respondent No. 2 (wife) married in 2013 and have a minor daughter.
Source reference: p. 3The wife alleged that the Petitioner demanded ₹10,00,000 and subsequently drove her out of the matrimonial home in 2017.
Source reference: p. 3-4She claimed the Petitioner earns ₹1,50,000 per month from a medicine business.
Source reference: p. 4The Petitioner contended he earns only ₹400 per day as a private pharmacist and has remarried, having another child and an aged mother to support.
Source reference: p. 5, 11The Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM), Goalpara, awarded maintenance of ₹12,000 to the wife and ₹8,000 to the child (total ₹20,000 per month) under Section 125 CrPC.
Source reference: p. 2-3Parallelly, the wife had been awarded ₹6,000 per month in a proceeding under the Domestic Violence (DV) Act.
Source reference: p. 5Issues
1. Whether the learned Magistrate erred in assessing the Petitioner's income at ₹75,000 per month based on adverse inference and the burden of proof under Section 106 of the Evidence Act.
Source reference: p. 7-82. Whether the maintenance awarded under Section 125 CrPC must be adjusted against maintenance awarded in parallel proceedings under the DV Act.
Source reference: p. 9Law Applied
Section 125 of the CrPC regarding the obligation to maintain one's wife and children.
Source reference: p. 7Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, regarding the burden of proving facts especially within knowledge.
Source reference: p. 7The Supreme Court precedent in Rajnesh v. Neha (2021) 2 SCC 324, which mandates that maintenance awarded in one proceeding must be adjusted against maintenance granted in another parallel proceeding to prevent overlapping payments.
Source reference: p. 9Reasoning
The High Court found that the Magistrate arbitrarily shifted the entire burden of proof onto the husband.
Source reference: p. 8It ruled that the husband’s failure to produce employment documents (due to informal employment) or examine his employer did not justify the Magistrate presuming his income to be ₹75,000—half of the wife's unsubstantiated claim.
Source reference: p. 8The Court noted that the wife provided no specific details of the alleged pharmacy business.
Source reference: p. 9Referencing the "Statement of Assets and Liabilities," the Court accepted the Petitioner’s stated income of ₹12,000–₹15,000 as probable.
Source reference: p. 10Applying an equitable apportionment, the Court noted the Petitioner has six dependents (self, mother, two wives, and two children); thus, the Respondent wife and child were entitled to only ~₹5,000 total.
Source reference: p. 10-11Furthermore, the Court held the Magistrate violated the Rajnesh v. Neha guidelines by failing to credit the ₹6,000 already awarded under the DV Act against the CrPC award.
Source reference: p. 9Holding
The respondent wife and child are entitled to a total maintenance of ₹6,000 per month (₹4,000 for the wife and ₹2,000 for the child). However, since an amount of ₹6,000 was already awarded in the DV Act proceedings, and after adjusting the same as per mandatory legal principles, the additional liability of the Petitioner under the Section 125 CrPC proceeding is reduced to "NIL".
The High Court allowed the revision and modified the impugned order.
Source reference: p. 11Original Court PDF
Sofikul Islam @ Sofiqul IslamvsThe State Of Assam And Anr
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in