Gauhati High Court
Crl.Rev.P./22/2026 of UTPAL SARMA AND ANR Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR on 30 August 2026
GAHC010006202026 2026:GAU-AS:12523 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Rev.P./22/2026 UTPAL SARMA AND ANR S/O LATE BANI KANTA SARMA, R/O H.NO.5 LAKHIMINAGAR, MEDHI PHUKAN ROAD, P.S. HATIGAON, DIST. KAMRUP M, GUWAHATI 781038 2:
GAHC010006202026
2026:GAU-AS:12523
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Crl.Rev.P./22/2026
UTPAL SARMA AND ANR
S/O LATE BANI KANTA SARMA, R/O H.NO.5 LAKHIMINAGAR, MEDHI
PHUKAN ROAD, P.S. HATIGAON, DIST. KAMRUP M, GUWAHATI 781038
2: KHANINDRA SARMA
S/O LATE BANIKANTA SARMA
R/O QTR RLY NO DG/35/C NEAR BARUARI DURGA MANDIR UZANBAZAR
CHENIKUTHI
GUWAHATI 781003
DIST. KAMRUP M
ASSAM
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR
REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM.
2:NIRIPUMA DEVI
W/O SRI LATE BANI KANTA SARMA
R/O H. NO 5
LAKHIMINAGAR
MEDHI PHUKAN ROAD
P.S. HATHIGAON
GUWAHATI 781038
DIST. KAMRUP M
ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. C S RAY, Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR D DAS(R2),MR. C CHAKRAVARTY(R2),MR B P
SARMAH(R2),S J KALITA(R2),B SAHA(R2),MR H M R HOQUE(R2),MR. S SARMA(R2)
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJAN MONI KALITA
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
Date : 31/08/2026 (Michael Zothankhuma, J)
1. Heard Mr. C. S. Ray, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. S. Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent no.2 and Ms. A. Begum, learned APP, Assam, for respondent no. 1.
2. This is a revision petition against the impugned judgment dated 03/10/2025, passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court-I, Kamrup (Metro) at Guwahati, in FC (Criminal) case No. 378/2023, by which the petitioner nos. 1 & 2 have been directed to pay monthly maintenance of Rs. 8000/- each to their mother (respondent no.2), with effect from the date of filing the petition under section 125 Cr.P.C. by the mother, i.e. 28/06/2023.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the wife of the petitioner no. 1 is a Government Teacher. However, the petitioner no. 1 is not working any longer, though in his affidavit of assets and liabilities, he had stated that he was earning Rs. 30,000/- to Rs. 35,000/- per month.
4. The petitioners’ counsel submits that the petitioner no. 2 is working in the Indian Railways and in this regard, he has submitted the Last Pay Certificate (LPC) of the petitioner no. 2 dated July, 2026, wherein his gross pay is shown as Rs. 1,07,172/-. After recoveries are made from the gross pay of the petitioner no. 2, his net pay is shown as Rs. 56,934/-.
5. The petitioners’ counsel submits that the petitioner no. 2 is presently paying maintenance to his wife @ Rs. 18,000/- per month, apart from looking after his two children, who are with the mother. The petitioners’ counsel submits that though paragraph 11 of the impugned judgment shows that the learned Family Court had made an observation that both the petitioners could afford Rs. 5000/- together, which could be paid to their mother, the said observation was wrong, inasmuch as, the petitioner no. 2 had stated that he could pay his mother Rs. 5000/- per month. No concession had been made by the petitioner no.1 in respect of the amount that could be given by the petitioner no. 1 to his mother. The petitioners’ counsel, however, submits that the petitioner nos. 1 and 2 are both willing to give Rs. 6000/- each to their mother, as monthly maintenance.
6. Mr. S. Sharma, the learned counsel for respondent no.2 (mother) submits that the petitioner no. 1 is running a business and owns four buses, one of which is a ultra bus, which is a luxury bus.
7. The above being said, the counsel for the respondent no. 2 submits that he agrees to the proposal made by the counsel for the petitioners’, that the mother would be paid Rs. 6000/- each by the petitioners.
8. In view of the consent of the parties, this Revision Petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioners, to pay to their mother (respondent no.2), Rs. 6000/- (Rupees six thousand) each, with effect from the date of submission of the application by the mother under section 125 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the petitioners would have to pay approximately Rs. 4,54,000/- in total, thereby requiring the petitioner nos. 1 & 2 to pay arrear maintenance of Rs, 2,27,000/- each as on 31/08/2026. The arrear amount would have to be paid by the petitioners’ within a period of 4 (four) months by way of 4 (four) instalments each. The petitioners’ would have to pay a minimum of Rs. 55,000/- each per month and the arrears would have to be paid by the 7th day of each succeeding month, starting from September, 2026.
9. Besides the four instalments, which should not be less than Rs. 55,000/- each per instalment, the regular maintenance amount of Rs. 6,000/- each would have to be paid with effect from September, 2026 to their mother.
10. The revision petition is accordingly disposed of.
JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant