Facts
The petitioner, a Rifleman/GD serving in the 41st Assam Rifles, challenged the order dated 30.12.2025 directing deduction of maintenance allowance at 33% of his pay in favour of respondent No. 5, his wife, and their children.
Source reference: p. 2, para. 1The deduction comprised 22% for the wife, 5.5% for the daughter and 5.5% for the son.
Source reference: p. 3, para. 2The petitioner contended that his replies dated 14.04.2025 and 10.11.2025 to the show-cause notices dated 13.04.2025 and 30.09.2025 had not been properly considered, and that his elder daughter was in his custody.
Source reference: p. 2, para. 1; p. 3, para. 2The maintenance was granted with effect from 04.02.2025, predating the show-cause notice issued to the petitioner.
Source reference: p. 3, para. 4During the pendency of the writ petition, the Court had suspended recovery of arrears by order dated 07.04.2026.
Source reference: p. 3, para. 4Issues
Whether the order dated 30.12.2025 granting maintenance under Section 69(i) of the Assam Rifles Act, 2006, was liable to be set aside for non-consideration of the petitioner’s show-cause replies and relevant circumstances, including the custody of his elder daughter.
Source reference: p. 2, para. 1; p. 3, paras. 2–5Whether the respondents’ determination of maintenance at 33%, including its retrospective operation from 04.02.2025, required reconsideration by the competent authorities.
Source reference: p. 3, paras. 4–5Law Applied
The Court applied Section 69(i) of the Assam Rifles Act, 2006, under which maintenance may be granted to eligible dependants of an Assam Rifles personnel.
Source reference: p. 3, paras. 2–5The exercise of such power must follow a fair procedure, including consideration of the affected person’s show-cause response and relevant financial and custodial circumstances.
Source reference: p. 3, paras. 2–5The Court also followed its earlier order dated 10.08.2023 in WP(C) No. 442 of 2022, under which a maintenance determination was remanded for reconsideration after permitting a fresh representation in similar circumstances.
Source reference: p. 3, para. 2Reasoning
The Court noted that although the petitioner did not dispute his obligation to pay maintenance, the impugned order granted maintenance retrospectively from 04.02.2025, before the relevant show-cause notice had been issued.
Source reference: p. 3, para. 4Further, the petitioner’s assertion that his elder daughter was in his custody was a material circumstance requiring consideration, particularly because the maintenance allocation included amounts for the children.
Source reference: p. 3, paras. 2 and 5Following its earlier approach in WP(C) No. 442 of 2022, the Court found that limited interference was warranted: the maintenance order was not wholly quashed, but the respondents were directed to re-examine the matter after receiving a fresh representation.
Source reference: p. 3, para. 5Holding
The writ petition was disposed of with directions to the respondents to reconsider the maintenance determination after allowing the petitioner to submit a fresh representation.
The representation was to be filed within two weeks and decided within four weeks thereafter.
Source reference: p. 4, para. 6The continuing 33% deduction was not disturbed pending reconsideration; however, recovery of arrears was kept in abeyance until the final determination of the quantum of maintenance.
Source reference: p. 4, para. 5The Court accordingly granted limited relief without setting aside the maintenance obligation altogether.
Source reference: p. 4, paras. 5–7Acts & Sections Cited
1 provisions across 1 statute referred to in this judgment. Each provision opens on LawLens.
Assam Rifles Act, 20061
Original Court PDF
NO. G/5012761M RIFLEMAN/GD KUSH KUMARvsUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
