01Facts
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.
p. 2 · ¶ 1The deduction comprised 22% for the wife, 5.5% for the daughter and 5.5% for the son.
p. 3 · ¶ 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.
p. 2 · ¶ 1 · p. 3 · ¶ 2The maintenance was granted with effect from 04.02.2025, predating the show-cause notice issued to the petitioner.
p. 3 · ¶ 4During the pendency of the writ petition, the Court had suspended recovery of arrears by order dated 07.04.2026.
p. 3 · ¶ 402Issues
i.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.
p. 2 · ¶ 1 · p. 3 · ¶ 2–5ii.Whether the respondents’ determination of maintenance at 33%, including its retrospective operation from 04.02.2025, required reconsideration by the competent authorities.
p. 3 · ¶ 4–503Law 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.
p. 3 · ¶ 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.
p. 3 · ¶ 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.
p. 3 · ¶ 2Provisions in the judgment · 1 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Assam Rifles Act, 2006 Section 69
04Reasoning
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.
p. 3 · ¶ 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.
p. 3 · ¶ 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.
p. 3 · ¶ 505Holding
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.
p. 4 · ¶ 6The representation was to be filed within two weeks and decided within four weeks thereafter.
p. 4 · ¶ 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.
p. 4 · ¶ 5The Court accordingly granted limited relief without setting aside the maintenance obligation altogether.
p. 4 · ¶ 5–7Original 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
