Gauhati High Court
Crl.Rev.P./515/2025 of BAHADUR ISLAM KHAN Vs JASHIDA BEGUM on 19 February 2026
GAHC010253462025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Rev.P./515/2025 BAHADUR ISLAM KHAN S/O MD ADATAL KHAN, R/O KOPOHA, P.O. BARPALLI, P.S. BARPETA, DIST. BARPETA, ASSAM. VERSUS JASHIDA BEGUM W/O BAHADUR ISLAM KHAN, R/O
GAHC010253462025
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Crl.Rev.P./515/2025
BAHADUR ISLAM KHAN
S/O MD ADATAL KHAN, R/O KOPOHA, P.O. BARPALLI, P.S. BARPETA, DIST.
BARPETA, ASSAM.
VERSUS
JASHIDA BEGUM
W/O BAHADUR ISLAM KHAN, R/O SITULI, P.O. SITOLI, P.S. BAGHBAR, DIST. BARPETA, ASSAM, PIN 781308
Advocate for the Petitioner : MS. P BORAH, Advocate for the Respondent : MR. N AHMED, MR. IMDADUL ISLAM,MR. M RAHMAN
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH MAZUMDAR
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 : 20.02.2026 Heard Ms. P. Borah, learned counsel for the petitioner also heard Mr. N. Ahmed, learned counsel appearing for the sole respondent.
2. The bone of contention in this petition is the order dated 30.08.2025, by which the petitioner has been directed to pay a maintenance of Rs. 4,000/- to the sole respondent herein and another amount of Rs. 3,000/- per month to each of her minor sons.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that without going into the assets and liabilities of each of the parties, the learned Trial Court had quantified the aforesaid amount.
4. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that a perusal of the records of the FC Criminal Case No. 288 of 2024 would reveal that the petitioner had distinctly denied being the co- owner of a fishery of one and half bighas and in the cross-examination it was admitted on being a co- owner of a fishery measuring about half a bigha.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the learned Trial Court had committed an error when the petitioner was taken to be an employee of a company earning an amount of 30, 000 to 40,000/-. Therefore since the relevant material was not taken into account in the impugned order, in so far as the quantification of the maintenances concern, the same requires interference of this Court.
6. Ms. P. Borah, learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand has submitted that it is a admitted position in the evidence that the petitioner owns 2 bighas land and is also a co-owner of a fishery measuring about half a bigha. In any view of the matter, the learned counsel for the respondent submits, that the amount quantified has been based on the cross-examination of the petitioner and his admissions regarding the land, the socio-economic status of the second party i.e., the petitioner herein and living standards has also being taken into account by the learned Trial Court in granting the aforesaid revision.
7. We have gone through documents available on a record. This Court is not exercising the power of an appellant authority; therefore appreciation of the evidence led would not be called for in this particular case.
8. It is however noticed that the while the learned Trial Court was considering the quantum of maintenance, it had averred that in the cross-examination the petitioner had a fishery covering an area 1 and ½ bigha jointly owned by his two brothers. He had admitted that he had two bighas land. In the circumstances aforesaid, this Court finds that the learned Trial Court had taken into consideration the fact of owing of a fishery of 1 and ½ bighas, when actually the petitioner had admitted being the co- owner of a fishery of only half a bigha.
9. In such circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the matter needs to be re-considered by the learned Trial Court taking into account the actual admissions made by the contesting parties in their evidence.
10. Accordingly, this matter is remanded back to the learned Family Court to take into account the evidence of assets and liabilities of each of the parties as have already been placed before the Court and thereafter quantify the amount of maintenance that may be required to be paid by each of the parties.
11. It is provided that, in the interim, till disposal of the FC Criminal Case No. 412 of 2024 on remand, the petitioner shall pay an amount of Rs. 3,000/- as maintenance to the first party and some of rupees 2,500/- each of the minor sons.
12. The learned Trial Court shall decide the amount of quantum without being influenced by the interim quantum granted by this Court during the pendency of the FC Criminal Case.
13. The learned Trial Court records be sent back along with copy of this order for the learned Trial Court to take necessary steps in accordance with this order. Parties to appear before the learned Trail Court with certified copies on 6th of March, 2026.
14. Criminal Revision Petition stands disposed of.
15. It has been made clear that the modified order of maintenance shall be applicable from the date of passing of this orders and the petitioner shall remain liable to clear the arrear amounts, if any, under the earlier order that has been interfered by this Court. JUDGE Comparing Assistant