Osman Gani Vs Firoza Begum

By this an application under Section 397/401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioner Osman Gani has put to challenge the final order dated 07.06.2022, passed in F.C. (Crl.) Misc. No.207/2021, passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Barpeta.

¶18

It is submitted by Mr. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner that initially in Case No. MR 70/06 and Misc. 03/14 was filed in the Court of learned SDJM (S), Barpeta, under Section 125 of the CrPC and vide order dated 01.03.2009, the learned Trial Court directed the petitioner to pay maintenance allowance of Rs.1000/- per month to the respondent and accordingly, the petitioner was paying the same regularly to the respondent. Thereafter, the respondent filed another application under Section 127 of the CrPC vide Misc. Case No.03/2014, for enhancement of the maintenance amount, which has been considered and vide order dated 04.08.2017, the Court of learned SDJM (S), Barpeta was pleased to enhance the maintenance allowance by Rs.1500/- per month and thus directed the petitioner to pay maintenance @ Rs.2500/- per month. The petitioner is also paying the same amount of maintenance to the respondent herein.

¶19

Thereafter, the respondent filed another application under Section 127 of the CrPC, before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Barpeta, seeking enhancement of the monthly maintenance @ Rs.25,000/-, which has been registered as the F.C. (Crl.) Misc. No.207/2021. On receipt of the notice in the said Misc. Case, the present petitioner appeared before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Barpeta by filing written statement, wherein it has also been brought to the notice of the learned Principal Judge, Family Court that the respondent is also working as an Anganwadi Worker and as such, she is capable

¶20

Page No.# 3/5

¶21

to maintain herself. That apart, the petitioner also has his second wife along with a daughter for which he is not in a position to pay maintenance at an enhanced rate, as sought by the respondent wife. But without considering this aspect of the case, the learned Principal Judge, Family Court vide order dated 07.06.2022, had enhanced the monthly maintenance allowance to Rs.6,000/and the petitioner was directed to pay the enhanced maintenance to the respondent wife.

¶22

On being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 07.06.2022, the present revision petition is filed for setting aside and quashing of the impugned order passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Barpeta in F.C. (Crl.) Misc. No.207/2021.

¶23

It is further submitted by Mr. Ahmed, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/husband that at the time of passing the order of enhancement, the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Barpeta did not consider the liability of the present petitioner towards his second wife as well as his daughter and at the same time, the learned Principal Judge also did not consider the assets and liabilities of the other side and her income, who is also an Anganwadi Worker and has the capability of maintaining herself. In the same time, in spite of the observation made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajnesh vs. Neha and another , reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324 , the impugned order has been passed without considering any assets and liabilities of the parties. Mr. Ahmed, the learned counsel accordingly submitted that the matter may be remanded back to the Court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Barpeta with a direction to hear the matter afresh and further direction to the parties, to furnish their assets and liabilities before the learned Family Court.

¶24

Page No.# 4/5

¶25

Mr. Hussain, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/wife submitted in this regard that though monthly maintenance @ Rs.6,000/- was ordered at an enhance amount, the respondent is not in a position to maintain herself with said meager amount. However, it is a fact that at the time of passing the impugned order, the assets and liabilities of the parties were not considered and none of the parties had filed their assets and liabilities at the time of hearing of the petition filed under Section 127 of the CrPC. The learned counsel for the respondent further submitted that the petitioner at present, is earning more than Rs. 70,000/- per month from his salary and that apart, he has also some other sources of income, though those were not brought into the notice of the Court. Mr. Hussain accordingly submitted that he has no objection if the matter is remanded back to the Court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Barpeta for a fresh hearing.

¶26

Hearing the submissions of learned counsel for both sides, I have also perused the records and annexure filed along with the present revision petition and also considering the fact that at the time of passing the order, the learned Principal Judge did not consider the assets and liabilities of the parties, this Court is of the opinion that the matter may be remanded back to the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Barpeta and the learned Family Court accordingly will dispose of the matter, giving an opportunity of hearing to both the parties, with further direction to the parties to furnish their assets and liabilities before the learned Family Court.

¶27

Accordingly, both the parties are hereby directed to appear before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Barpeta on 21.04.2026, with their respective affidavits disclosing their assets and liabilities and the learned Court below will

¶28

Page No.# 5/5

¶29

hear the matter afresh and will pass necessary order in that regard. However, till the date of disposal of the matter afresh, the petitioner will continue to pay maintenance to the respondent @ Rs.6,000/- per month.

¶30

With the above directions, the present revision petition stands disposed of.

¶31

Send back the record of the F.C. (Crl.) Misc. Case No.207/2021, to the Court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Barpeta forthwith, with a copy of this order.

¶32

JUDGE

¶33

Comparing Assistant

Osman Gani v. Firoza Begum

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Osman Gani v. Firoza Begum

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

MD Nizamul Hoque @ Mizamul Hoque Vs MD Bazlur Rahman @ Baznur Rahman

Saiqul Islam Barbhuiya Alias Saiful Islam Borbhuiya Vs the State of Assam

Kajol Chaterjee Alias Kajal Chatterjee Vs the State of Assam

Mahammad Ali Vs the State of Assam

Mokbul Hussain Vs the State of Assam

Anam and 2 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and Anr.