Disposed¶35

Utpal Dey v. Sutapa Dey and Anr.

Gauhati HC9 Mar 2026Crl.Pet./896/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: interim maintenance modification; Section 482 CrPC; Section 397 CrPC; Family Court No.II Kamrup (M) Guwahati; F.C. (Crl.) No.327/2022; Section 9 Hindu Marriage Act 1955 restitution of conjugal rights; salary certificate; assets and liabilities affidavit; child name discrepancy Dipankar Dey / Utkarsh Dey; reduction of interim maintenance from Rs.7,000 to Rs.5,000 per month; disposal within three months; Gauhati High Court; Mitali Thakuria, J.; neutral citation 2026:GAU-AS:3518.

What did the court decide?

Partial relief: interim maintenance reduced from Rs.7,000/- to Rs.5,000/- per month, payable till disposal of the maintenance application; Trial Court directed to dispose of the matter preferably within three months and to consider the child's name issue; criminal petition disposed of with the above observation and modification.

Utpal Dey Vs Sutapa Dey and Anr. — Matrimonial and Divorce | Gauhati HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶35

Issue for consideration

Whether the interim maintenance order dated 01.08.2023 (Rs.7,000/- per month), passed on the respondent No.1's unsupported assertion of the petitioner's Rs.30,000/- monthly income, should be set aside/quashed, particularly in view of the petitioner's salary certificate showing a monthly salary of Rs.19,000/-. +2 more

¶23

Court's answer

The impugned interim maintenance order is slightly modified: the petitioner shall pay interim maintenance @ Rs.5,000/- per month till disposal of the maintenance application, and the Trial Court is further directed to dispose of the matter within a short possible time, preferably within three months from the date of the order.

¶32

Ratio / Principle

Considering all other aspects of the case, including the company-issued salary certificate produced by the petitioner along with his assets-and-liabilities affidavit, the Court found that a slight modification of the interim maintenance order was warranted.

¶31

Key takeaways

It cannot be believed that respondent No.1 would seek maintenance for any child other than her own child (Dipankar Dey as per the birth certificate); however, as the child's name is presently stated to be Utkarsh Dey, the learned Trial Court below may consider this aspect and pass an appropriate order.ratio¶30

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Gauhati High Court (Mitali Thakuria, J.), order dated 10.03.2026 in Crl.Pet./896/2023: An application under Section 482 read with Section 397 CrPC challenged the interim maintenance order dated 01.08.2023 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court No.II, Kamrup (M), Guwahati in F.C. (Crl.) No.327/2022, directing the husband to pay Rs.7,000/- per month on the wife's unsupported assertion of his Rs.30,000/- monthly income. The husband relied on a computer-generated salary certificate showing Rs.19,000/- monthly salary, filed with his assets-and-liabilities affidavit, and also raised a discrepancy in the child's name (Dipankar Dey per birth certificate versus Utkarsh Dey per the wife's petition). The Court held that the wife could not be believed to seek maintenance for any child other than her own, left consideration of the name change to the Trial Court, and, taking into account the salary certificate, slightly modified the interim maintenance to Rs.5,000/- per month till disposal of the maintenance application, with a direction to dispose of the matter preferably within three months. Petition disposed of accordingly.

Page No.# 1/6

GAHC010187552023

2026:GAU-AS:3518

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

¶5

Case No. : Crl.Pet./896/2023

¶6

UTPAL DEY S/O LT. JYOTINDRA CH. DEY R/O HOUSE NO. 19, BYE LANE 3, JOYMATI NAGAR, GUWAHATI-12, P.S. JALUKBARI, DIST. KAMRUP (M), ASSAM

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

SUTAPA DEY AND ANR D/OLATE KETAKI RANJAN DEY HOUSE NO. 31, BYE LANE NO. 2 SHREE NAGAR, GUWAHATI-06, P.S. DISPUR, DIST. KAMRUP (M), ASSAM PH. NO. 8473026566 (M)

¶9

2:THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE PP ASSAM

¶10

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. K KALITA, MRS. M. BARUAH BHUYAN

¶11

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR. U K GOSWAMI (R-1)

¶12

BEFORE

¶13

HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA

O R D E R

Date : 10.03.2026.

Page No.# 2/6

Heard Mr. K. Kalita, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. U.K. Goswami, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 and Mr. P. Borthakur, learned Addl. P.P., Assam appearing on behalf of the State respondent No.2.

¶18

This is an application under Section 482 read with Section 397 of the CrPC, against the impugned order dated 01.08.2023, passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court No.II, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati in F.C. (Crl.) No.327/2022, directing the petitioner to pay interim maintenance @ Rs.7,000/- per month.

¶19

It is submitted by Mr. Kalita, the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner and the respondent No.1 got married in the year 2015 and initially the case was also registered before the Marriage Officer, Kamrup (Metro) at Guwahat on 29.09.2015 and thereafter, the marriage was also solemnized socially. A male child was also born out of their wedlock and on 25.07.2016, after the birth of the child, the respondent No.1 willfully deserted the petitioner and since January, 2017 and without any valid reason, she started to live in her parental home along with her minor child. Thereafter, the petitioner also filed a petition for restitution of their conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and the case is still pending in the Court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court No.II, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati. After institution of the said case of restitution of conjugal rights, the petitioner filed a case seeking maintenance from the present petitioner.

¶20

While filing the present application, the respondent had stated that the petitioner had monthly income of Rs.30,000/- without any supporting document. On the other hand, at the time of filing the assets and liabilities along with the written objection, the petitioner had filed his salary certificate which is a

¶21

Page No.# 3/6

¶22

computer generated copy, according to which the petitioner is earning salary of Rs. 19,000/- per month from the company, where he works. The assets and liabilities were submitted on oath with an affidavit wherein he stated his monthly salary as Rs.19,000/-. Apart from that, at the time of filing his written objection, he also raised the issue that the name of his child, as per the birth certificate was “Dipankar Dey” but the respondent No.1 mentioned in her petition, the name of the child as “Utkarsh Dey”, who is not known to the petitioner, for which the petitioner also prayed for a direction to the respondent No.1 to furnish the birth certificate in respect of said Utkarsh Dey, for which who is claimed to be the son of the present petitioner. But without considering all these aspects of the case and even not considering the monthly salary of the present petitioner, the learned Principal Judge, Family Court No.II, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati has passed the order of monthly maintenance only on the verbal submission made by the respondent No.1, considering his monthly income as Rs.30,000/-.

¶23

Accordingly, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the interim order of maintenance which has already been passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court No.II, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati, directing him to pay Rs.7,000/- per month is liable to be set aside and quashed and the learned Trial Court may be directed to hear both the parties on assets and liabilities and also in respect of the name of the child, as brought by the respondent. However, he submitted that being his wife and child, the petitioner is always duty bound to pay maintenance to them but he is not in a position to pay maintenance @ Rs.7,000/- per month, out of his income of Rs.19,000/- per month.

¶24

Page No.# 4/6

¶25

Mr. Goswami, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 submitted in this regard that learned Principal Judge, Family Court No.II, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati has rightly passed the order of maintenance and there cannot be any reason for interference by this Court. He further submitted that admittedly the name of the child was Dipankar Dey at the time of issuing the birth certificate but as per some Hindu rituals and all, the child was admitted in the school with name Utkarsh Dey. Further, the learned counsel further submitted that though the respondent No.1 could not submit any documentary evidence in regards to income of the present petitioner, but it was from her belief she stated that the petitioner is earning Rs.30,000/- per month, as told by the petitioner himself during their conjugal life. The learned counsel for the respondent No.1 further submitted that the child has already admitted in the school and the respondent No.1 is not in a position to maintain herself along with the child, with a meager amount of Rs.7,000/- per month, which has already been granted by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court No.II, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati, towards interim maintenance. He further submitted that the respondent had already brought all the reasons in her petition as to why she had to leave her matrimonial home along with her new born child. Accordingly, the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 submitted that there may not be any interference in the order passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court No.II, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati, towards the interim maintenance.

¶26

Hearing the submissions of learned counsel for both sides, I have also perused the records and annexure filed along with the present criminal petition.

¶27

It is an admitted fact that the respondent No.1 is staying in her parental house, leaving her matrimonial house after the birth of the child. Both the parties have

¶28

Page No.# 5/6

¶29

also filed their assets and liabilities along with their petition as well as with written statement/written objection, wherein it is stated that the monthly income of the present petitioner is Rs.30,000/- per month, while submitting her assets and liabilities by the respondent No.1. On the other hand, it is the claim of the petitioner that he is earning Rs.19,000/- per month and to that effect, he also produced his salary slip, which is a computer generated copy.

¶30

After hearing the submissions of learned counsel for both sides, it cannot be believed that the respondent No.1 will seek for maintenance for any other child, leaving her own child who is Dipankar Dey as per the birth certificate. However, at present, the name of the child is stated to be Utkarsh Dey and in that regard, the learned Trial Court below may consider this aspect and pass an appropriate order to that regard.

¶31

Coming to the amount of maintenance granted to the respondent No.1, it is seen that considering the monthly income of the petitioner as Rs.30,000/-, the interim maintenance was granted towards Rs.7,000/- per month but considering all other aspects of the case including the salary certificate issued by the company and produced by the petitioner at the time of filing his assets and liabilities on affidavit, I find that slight modification of the order may be passed.

¶32

In view of this, the impugned order dated 01.08.2023, passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court No.II, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati in F.C. (Crl.) No.327/2022, is hereby slightly modified to the extent that the petitioner will pay interim maintenance @ Rs.5,000/- per month, till the disposal of the said maintenance application with further direction to dispose of the matter, within a short possible time, preferably within three (3) months, from the date of this

¶33

Page No.# 6/6

¶34

order.

¶35

With the above observation and modification, the present criminal petition stands disposed of.

¶36

JUDGE

¶37

Comparing Assistant

Utpal Dey v. Sutapa Dey and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Utpal Dey v. Sutapa Dey and Anr.

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

Ashadur Rahman Vs the State of Assam

Sahida Khatun Vs the State of Assam

Asad Uddin Alias Asar Uddin Alias Sofi Vs the State of Assam

Dipen Sarma Vs the State of Assam

Sachin Kumar Vs the State of Assam

Mrinal Das Alias Mrinal Ch Das Vs the State of Assam