Dismissed¶13

Abu Eusuf Md. Raihan Uddin v. Rezwana Ferdusi Khanam

Gauhati HC17 Mar 2026Crl.Pet./854/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Gauhati High Court, Crl.Pet./854/2025, decided 18-03-2026 by Mitali Thakuria, J. Petitioner Abu Eusuf Md. Raihan Uddin v. Respondent Rezwana Ferdusi Khanam. Section 528 BNS quashing petition against order dated 06.05.2024 in DV Case No. 516/2022 (JMFC, Nagaon) — Rs.1,00,000/- for minor child's medical treatment — and its affirmation dated 24.03.2025 in Crl. A. No. 26/2024 (Additional Sessions Judge No.3, Nagaon). Findings: ex parte order vacated on 06.05.2024 giving hearing; urgent order for child's eye/ear treatment; no maintenance order; no infirmity; petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

There is no infirmity in the order dated 06.05.2024 passed in DV Case No. 516/2022 by the learned JMFC, Nagaon, affirmed by the learned Appellate Court vide order dated 24.03.2025 in Crl. A. No. 26/2024. ¶12

Abu Eusuf Md. Raihan Uddin Vs Rezwana Ferdusi Khanam — Gauhati HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Page No.# 1/5

GAHC010137702025

2026:GAU-AS:3900

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶5

Case No. : Crl.Pet./854/2025

¶6

ABU EUSUF MD. RAIHAN UDDIN S/O- MOSQUR HUSSAIN. R/O- VILL.- KHANDULIMARI, P.S.- JURIA, DIST.- NAGAON, ASSAM, PIN782124.

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

REZWANA FERDUSI KHANAM W/O- MAKABUL ALI. P.S.- JURIA, DIST.- NAGAON, ASSAM, PIN-782124.

¶9

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR A T M HUSSAIN, MRS M ALOM

¶10

Advocate for the Respondent : MR SARFRAZ NAWAZ, SAMIM RAHMAN,MR A W AMAN,MD A RAHMAN,MR. SURAJIT DAS,A MISHRA

¶11

BEFORE

¶12

HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA

¶13

ORDER

¶14

18-03-2026

¶15

Heard Mr. A T M Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S. Nawaz, learned counsel for the respondent No.2. Also heard Mr. B. Sarma, learned APP, Assam.

¶16

2. This is an application filed under Section 528 BNS for setting aside and

¶17

Page No.# 2/5

¶18

quashing the judgment and order dated 24.03.2025, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.3, Nagaon in Crl. Appl. No. 26/2024.

¶19

3. It is submitted by Mr. Hussain, learned counsel that the present petitioner got married with the respondent 9 years ago on 22.07.2013 and out of their wedlock a male child was also born to them. But without informing the petitioner, the respondent/aggrieved had left the house along with some cash amount. Thereafter, the respondent filed a DV Case, being DV Case No. 516/2022 and the case was fixed on 06.05.2024 and on the same day, the respondent/aggrieved had filed a petition being Petition No. 2068/2024 and prayed for payment of Rs.1,00,000/- for treatment of their son. But without giving any opportunity of hearing to the present petitioner, the order has been passed on the said very day i.e., on 06.05.2024 asking the present petitioner to pay Rs.1,00,000/- and to bear all the necessary medical expenses for the child and also asked to pay Rs.50,000/- per month towards maintenance of the aggrieved.

¶20

4. He further submitted that the learned Trial Court without considering the assets and liabilities of the parties and without giving a chance to the present petitioner for hearing had passed the order which is against the principles of natural justice. He further submitted that against the said order, they have preferred an appeal before the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.3, Nagaon which was registered as Crl. A. No. 26/2024, but, the said appeal was also dismissed and the order passed by the learned Trial Court was affirmed. Aggrieved to the said order of the learned Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court, the present petition has been filed.

¶21

5. Mr. Hussain, learned counsel further submitted that without considering the assets and liabilities of the parties, the learned Trial Court had passed the

¶22

Page No.# 3/5

¶23

order of maintenance and Rs.1,00,000/- towards treatment and hence, the matter may be remanded back to the learned Trial Court to pass order by giving a chance of hearing to both parties and also considering the assets and liabilities of both the parties.

¶24

6. Mr. Nawaz, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submitted in this regard that the revision petition itself is defective, wherein they have not made any prayer for setting aside the order of the learned Appellate Court in the cause title, however, subsequently, the prayer for setting aside the order passed by the learned Appellate Court has been made in the body of the petition.

¶25

7. Mr. Nawaz, learned counsel further submitted that till date the respondent has not received any maintenance allowance, nor there is any ex party order has been passed granting maintenance to the respondent. On 06.05.2024 both the parties were heard before passing the order by the learned Trial Court wherein the ex parte order passed against the petitioner was also vacated giving him a chance for hearing of this case.

¶26

8. He further submitted that on 06.05.2024 an application was made by the respondent seeking monetary relief only for the treatment of her child who is not only suffering from eye problem but also suffering from hearing problem. She was providing treatment to the child by borrowing money and for which she had to immediately file a petition seeking money for the treatment of her child. In the said petition it was only her contention that she had to bear regular medical expenses for her child from Rs.5,000/- to Rs.15,000/- per month which was somehow she is managing with the support of her family members. But in the said order there was no order of any maintenance for the respondent/aggrieved and Rs.1,00,000/- is only directed to pay by the petitioner towards the treatment of her son. As there was no interim order passed for the

¶27

Page No.# 4/5

¶28

maintenance at the time of passing the order on 06.05.2024, the question of hearing on the assets and liabilities does not arise, however, at that very point of time, petitioner’s assets and liabilities was Rs.57,00,000/- and his yearly income was more than Rs.8-9 lacks who was also appearing as a candidate for the M. P. Election. So considering this aspect of the case and only for the heath ground of the child of the petitioner, the order was passed by the learned Trial Court which is also affirmed by the learned Sessions Judge vide its judgment and order dated 24.03.2025, passed in Crl. A. No. 26/2024.

¶29

9. Mr. Nawaz, learned counsel further submitted that till date he has not provided with a single penny towards maintenance of the aggrieved and her son and also not provided any money towards the treatment of her child and she somehow borrowing money from other the child had undergone operation of his ear as he was suffering from hearing problem. Accordingly Mr. Nawaz, learned counsel submitted that the learned Trial Court as well as the learned Appellate Court had not committed any illegality or mistake or there is no perversity in the order passed by the learned Appellate Court to interfere with the order of the learned Trial Court. Mr. Nawaz, learned counsel accordingly submitted that the present petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶30

10. Heard the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and I have also perused the case record and the annexure appended with the petition specially the orders passed by the learned Trial Court as well as by the learned Appellate Court.

¶31

11. It is a fact that the marriage and the paternity of the child is not disputed and it is the only dispute that the respondent is staying in her paternal house. From the order passed on 06.05.2024 it is seen that the ex parte order passed against the petitioner was also vacated on that very day giving an opportunity of

¶32

Page No.# 5/5

¶33

hearing to the present petitioner and there is no mention in the order that any adjournment prayer was made by the learned counsel for the petitioner on 06.05.2024 at the time of passing the order. More so, it is seen that the order was passed on an urgent basis as the child of the respondent was suffering from both eye and ear problem. The direction was given to the petitioner for payment of Rs.1,00,000/- only towards the treatment of the child and there was no other order of maintenance to be aggrieved by the present petitioner.

¶34

12. In view of above and considering all the aspects of the case, this Court is of the opinion that there is no infirmity in the order dated 06.05.2024 passed in DV Case No. 516/2022 by the learned JMFC, Nagaon affirmed by the learned Appellate Court vide its order dated 24.03.2025 passed in Crl. A. No. 26/2024.

¶35

13. Accordingly, this criminal petition being devoid of any merit stands dismissed.

¶36

JUDGE

¶37

Comparing Assistant

Abu Eusuf Md. Raihan Uddin v. Rezwana Ferdusi Khanam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abu Eusuf Md. Raihan Uddin v. Rezwana Ferdusi Khanam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hitesh Sarkar Vs the State of Assam

Anup Baruah and 4 Ors. Vs the State of Assam

Pankaj Das Vs the State of Assam

Biplab Nath Vs the State of Assam

Sabinur Ali Vs the State of Assam

Abdul Rahim @ Abdur Rahim Vs the State of Assam