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. 11Original Court PDF
Golap HussainvsRoushanara Begum And Anr
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in