Smti Pranita Swargiary Vs Oil India Limited and 4 Ors.

2:THE DIRECTOR OIL INDIA LIMITED DULIAJAN DISTRICT- DIBRUGARH ASSAM PIN-786602 3:THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OIL INDIA LIMITED (PHQ) UDAYAN VIHAR DISTRICT- KAMRUP (M) ASSAM PIN-781101 4:THE GENERAL MANAGER OIL INDIA LIMITED NARANGI GUWAHATI DISTRICT- KAMRUP (M) ASSAM PIN-781021

¶10

Page No.# 2/3

¶11

5:BHUMIDHAR SWARGIARY

¶12

C/O SHANTANA KRO (OPPOSITE TO THE HOUSE OF GAON BURAH) P.O.UDAYAN VIHAR GAON BURA PATH DISTRICT- KAMRUP (M) ASSAM PIN-78117

¶13

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S CHAUHAN, B CHOWHAN,R DEB,M. BORUAH,MR. P MAZUMDER

¶14

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, OIL,

¶15

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY

¶16

ORDER

¶17

13.10.2025

¶18

Heard Mr. S. Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel, Oil India Limited [OIL] for the respondent nos. 1 to 4.

¶19

The petitioner is the wife of one Sri Bhumidhar Swargiary, who has been impleaded as party-respondent no. 5 in the instant writ petition.

¶20

Previously, the petitioner complaining that the respondent no. 5 did not maintain her, preferred an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure [CrPC], 1973 before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pathsala [‘the Trial Court’] and the said application was registered as M.R. Case no. 7 of 2001. By an Order dated 29.11.2001, the Trial Court granted maintenance @ Rs. 400/- per month to the petitioner and @ Rs. 200/per month to each of the three children of the petitioner. Subsequently, applications were preferred by the petitioner under Section 127, CrPC from time to time and as per the Final Order passed under Section 127, CrPC on 16.11.2015, the petitioner was granted a maintenance allowance @ Rs. 3,700/- per month.

¶21

Page No.# 3/3

¶22

It is the grievance of the petitioner that despite the maintenance orders under Section 125 read with Section 127, CrPC, the respondent no. 5 has not been regularly paying the maintenance amount resulting in accumulation of a substantial amounts as arrears.

¶23

This writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner stating that the respondent no. 5 has retired from service in June, 2025 from the employement of the respondent nos. 1 to 4 as a Chief Security Officer and towards his retirement benefit, the respondent no. 5 is likely to receive an amount of Rs. 70,00,000/- [approx.] his employers. The writ petition is preferred seeking inter alia a direction to the respondent OIL authorities to deduct an amount equivalent to the arrear maintenance amounts payable to the petitioner in terms of the Orders of the Trial Court.

¶24

Having regard to the provisions contained in Chapter-IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 including Section 128, and Chapter-X of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita [BNSS], 2023 including Section 147, this Court finds that the petitioner has an adequate, efficacious and alternative statutory remedy for enforcement of the award of the Trial Court. In view of availability of such adequate, efficacious and alternative statutory remedy, the writ petition is not entertained.

¶25

JUDGE

¶26

Comparing Assistant

Smti Pranita Swargiary v. Oil India Limited and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smti Pranita Swargiary v. Oil India Limited and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Deepak Gupta Vs the Union of India

Binod Kr. Agarwala Vs Ram Borah and 2 Ors.

Smti. Ashinu Savi Vs State of Nagaland and 5 Ors.

Arjun Thapa Vs the Union of India and 2 Ors.

Dr. Mokshyada Prasad Borthakur and Anr. Vs the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Sunita Tamuly Vs the State of Assam and 10 Ors.