Facts
The Petitioner (husband) challenged the final order dated 30.05.2025 passed by the Family Court, Barpeta, in a proceeding under Section 125 CrPC
Source reference: p. 2The Family Court had granted maintenance of ₹7,000/- per month each to the Respondent wife and their minor daughter
Source reference: p. 2The wife alleged she was forced to leave the matrimonial home on 23.03.2022 due to physical torture and unlawful demands for land
Source reference: p. 2Evidence showed the Petitioner is a practicing advocate (since 2008) and a teacher in a venture college
Source reference: p. 4The wife admitted to earning a meagre ₹2,000/- per month as a Tally Education volunteer, a fact not initially disclosed in her Assets & Liability statement
Source reference: p. 3The Petitioner contended that the wife left voluntarily without cause and suppressed her income, thereby disqualifying her from maintenance
Source reference: p. 4-5Issues
1. Whether the wife is entitled to maintenance under Section 125 CrPC if she allegedly left the matrimonial home without a justifiable reason.
Source reference: p. 52. Whether the non-disclosure of a meagre income in the Assets & Liability statement and the wife's capacity to earn disentitle her from maintenance.
Source reference: p. 4-53. Whether the quantum of maintenance awarded by the Family Court was perverse or exceeded the scope of available evidence.
Source reference: p. 10Law Applied
The Court applied Section 125 of the CrPC (corresponding to Section 144 of the BNSS, 2023), which provides a summary remedy for maintenance to prevent vagrancy and destitution
Source reference: p. 8-9It relied on the procedural mandate of Rajneesh v. Neha & Ors. (2021) 2 SCC 324 regarding the filing of Assets and Liabilities affidavits
Source reference: p. 4The Court followed the principle in Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai (2008) 2 SCC 316, which clarifies that "unable to maintain herself" does not require a wife to be in absolute destitution; rather, it refers to the means available to her to maintain the standard of living she had at the matrimonial home
Source reference: p. 7, 9The Court also noted the limited scope of revisionary jurisdiction, which allows interference only in cases of jurisdictional error or perversity
Source reference: p. 10Reasoning
The Court observed that Section 125 CrPC is a measure of social justice intended to provide a speedy remedy for food, clothing, and shelter
Source reference: p. 7On the facts, the Court found the wife’s allegations of torture credible, supported by her brother's testimony (PW2) and the history of village "Mels" convened to resolve disputes
Source reference: p. 3, 10Regarding the income suppression, the Court held that the wife's honorarium of ₹2,000/- was "meagre" in the current economic context and did not satisfy the requirement of being able to maintain herself
Source reference: p. 10The Court highlighted that the Petitioner’s status as an advocate and teacher, contrasted with his admission of a second marriage in 2014, undermined his defense
Source reference: p. 4, 6The Court concluded that the Family Court properly weighed the evidence and the respective socio-economic statuses of the parties
Source reference: p. 10Holding
The High Court dismissed the revision petition, holding that the Respondent wife successfully established a prima facie case of negligence and refusal to maintain by the Petitioner
The Court affirmed that maintenance of ₹7,000/- per month each for the wife and daughter was reasonable and "rather on the lower side"
Source reference: p. 10The Petitioner was directed to pay the maintenance regularly and clear all arrears within 45 days from the date of the judgment
Source reference: p. 11Acts & Sections Cited
1 provisions across 1 statute referred to in this judgment. Each provision opens on LawLens.
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 20231
Original Court PDF
Golap HussainvsRoushanara Begum And Anr
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
