Fazil Ahmed Barbhuiya vs Ruhana Begom Laskar

Heard Mr. A. M. Barbhuiya, the learned counsel for the petitioner.

Also heard Mr. M. J. Quadir, the learned counsel for the respondent.

This Revision Petition under Section 448/442 of the BNSS, 2023 has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Fazil Ahmed Barbhuiya, impugning the judgment and order dated 16.12.2025, passed by the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Hailakandi, in Criminal Appeal No.13/2024, whereby, the appeal preferred by the present petitioner against the order dated 21.02.2024, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Hailakandi, in DV Case No.56/2021, was dismissed. By the aforesaid order, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Hailakandi, had enhanced the interim maintenance awarded to the respondent from Rs. 4,000/-to Rs. 8,000/-.

The facts relevant for consideration of the instant revision petition, in brief, are that the present petitioner married the respondent as per Muslim personal law, on 29.12.2019 by fixing the dower money of Rs. 3,25,000/. It is alleged in the present petition by the petitioner that, after a few days of their marriage, the respondent/ wife deserted the petitioner and filed a false case against him as well as his brother, which was registered as Algapur P.S. Case No. 223/2021 under Sections 498A/376/506/406 of the Indian Penal Code. The said case is now registered as Sessions Case No.21/2023 and the trial is going on in the Court of the learned Sessions Judge, Hailakandi.

It is further alleged in the instant petition that the respondent/wife also filed a case against the present petitioner seeking zimma of the household articles belonging to her, which she had brought along with her at the time of her marriage. In the said case, the Court had granted zimma of all those household articles to the respondent.

Thereafter, the respondent wife filed an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as DV Act), against the present petitioner, praying for maintenance amount of Rs. 15,000/- per month. On the basis of this said application, the DV Case No. 56/2021 was registered in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Hailakandi. In the said case, the brother and sister of the present petitioner were also made respondents. The present petitioner, along with his brother and sister, appeared before the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Hailakandi, in the DV Case No. 56/2021 and filed their written statement denying the allegations made against them by the present respondent. In the said DV case, the present respondent submitted her affidavit of assets and liabilities.

However, by the order dated 02.07.2022, passed in DV Case No.

56/2021, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Hailakandi granted interim monthly maintenance amount of Rs. 4,000/- in favour of the respondent to be paid by the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the present petitioner preferred an appeal before the Court of the learned Sessions Judge, Hailakandi. The said appeal was registered as Criminal Appeal No.2/2023.

By the order dated 17.05.2023, the learned Sessions Judge, Hailakandi upheld the order granting interim maintenance of Rs. 4,000/- to the respondent and dismissed the appeal preferred by the present petitioner.

Thereafter, by another interim order dated 21.04.2024, passed in DV Case No. 56/2021, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Hailakandi, enhanced the interim maintenance granted to the respondent from Rs. 4,000/- to Rs. 8,000/-.

Being aggrieved by the aforesaid enhancement made by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Hailakandi, the present petitioner again approached the Court of the learned Sessions Judge, Hailakandi by filing an appeal against the interim order dated 21.04.2024, passed in DV Case No. 56/2021. The said appeal was registered as Criminal Appeal No.13/2024. Though, during the pendency of the said appeal, the learned Sessions Judge directed the present petitioner to pay 50% of the amount awarded by the impugned judgment, however, ultimately, by the judgment and order dated 16.12.2025, passed in Criminal Appeal No.13/2024, the Court of the learned Sessions Judge, Hailakandi dismissed the said appeal and upheld the enhancement of interim maintenance amount awarded to the respondent from Rs.4,000/-to Rs. 8,000/-. The aforesaid judgment passed in the Criminal Appeal, by the learned Sessions Judge, Hailakandi has been impugned in this Revision Petition.

Mr. A. M. Barbhuiya, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Appellate Court of the learned Sessions Judge, Hailakandi erred in dismissing the Criminal Appeal No.13/2024 by ignoring the fact that the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Hailakandi, while enhancing the interim maintenance from Rs. 4,000/- to Rs. 8,000/- per month did not take into consideration the affidavit of assets and liabilities submitted by the present petitioner in the DV Case No. 56/2021. He submits that in the said affidavit, it has been categorically stated by the petitioner that though he receives a salary of Rs. 36,100/-, however his monthly expenditure exceeds his income and is in the tune of Rs. 37,931/- and, therefore, he is not in a position to pay the enhanced monthly maintenance amount awarded by the Court to the respondent.

The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner after obtaining divorce from the respondent, had married another woman on 31.08.2025 and is now leading a peaceful family life with his new wife and enhancement of maintenance amount from Rs 4,000/- to Rs. 8,000/- would put an additional unbearable financial burden on him. He submits that both the Courts below did not consider the materials on record in its true perspective before enhancing the interim maintenance payable to the respondent from Rs. 4,000/- to Rs. 8,000/-.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that apart from starting a new marital life, the petitioner is also burdened with the liabilities to look after his other dependents like mother, unemployed sister and an ailing brother. However, these aspects were not taken into consideration by both the Courts below.

He submits that the Courts below have not taken into consideration the factors which ought to have been considered while assessing the quantum of maintenance payable to the respondent, like the reasonable needs of the wife, her educational qualifications as well as the fact that it is the respondent, who deserted the petitioner immediately after their marriage. He submits that the capability of paying the enhanced maintenance was also not properly considered in view of the fact that the financial liability of the petitioner is more than his income as per the statement of assets and liabilities.

In view of the above, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned judgment of the Sessions Court is liable to be set aside as well as order of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Hailakandi, by which the interim maintenance awarded to the present respondent has been enhanced to Rs. 4,000/- to Rs.8,000/- is liable to be set aside. In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner has cited following rulings.

On the other hand, Mr. M. J. Quadir, the learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the Court of the learned Sessions Judge, Hailakandi has rightly dismissed the appeal filed by the present petitioner against the order of enhancement of the interim maintenance by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Hailakandi from Rs. 4,000/- to Rs. 8,000/-. He submits that the present respondent has been subjected to domestic violence by the petitioner and his family members. He submits that the respondent was also subjected to rape by the brother of the petitioner on 11.07.2021 and in this regard, the criminal case i.e., the Sessions Case No. 21/2023 is also pending before the learned Sessions Judge, Hailakandi.

He further submits that both the Courts below have taken into consideration all the relevant aspects which are required to be looked into before awarding interim maintenance in case under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. He submits that the Courts below took into consideration that the respondent is a lady without any source of her income whereas the petitioner apart from earning salary as a teacher of a high school have additional source of income. He submits that it is only after filing of an affidavit of assets and liabilities by the present petitioner, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Hailakandi, had enhanced the monthly interim maintenance awarded to the respondent from Rs. 4,000/- to Rs. 8000/-.

He further submits that the petitioner has till date only paid a total amount of Rs. 95,000/- against the interim maintenance awarded to the respondent and as on date, an amount of more than Rs.1,60,000/- has accumulated as outstanding arrears towards the payment of interim maintenance amount awarded to the respondent. As such, the respondent is facing severe financial difficulty. He submits that merely because the respondent is an educated lady, the same may not be a ground for disentitling her from her legitimate due, as she is an unemployed lady without any source of income and has been subjected to domestic violence by the petitioner and his family members.

The learned counsel for the respondent further submits that the exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 438/442 of the BNSS, 2023 has to only keep the Courts below within the bounds of their jurisdiction. He submits that while exercising revisional power, this Court cannot act as a second court of appeal and also cannot re-appreciate the evidence to arrive at a different finding of facts from that of concurrent finding of two Courts below. Under such circumstances, he submits that this revision petition is liable to be dismissed. In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the respondent has cited following rulings:

Ors. reported in 2021 3 SCC (Cri) 803; and

Mansoori reported in (2014) 10 SCC 736.

I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides and have gone through the materials available on record. I have also gone through the rulings cited by the learned counsel for both sides in support of their respective submissions.

The point to be determined in this Revision Petition is as to whether the Appellate Court has erred in upholding the judgment of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Hailakandi, whereby, the interim monthly maintenance awarded to the respondent was enhanced from Rs. 4,000/- to Rs. 8,000/-.

On perusal of the impugned judgment, it appears that while upholding the judgment of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Hailakandi, in enhancing the interim maintenance awarded to the respondent wife from Rs. 4,000/- to Rs. 8,000/-per month, the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Hailakandi, has observed in the impugned judgment that the amount of interim maintenance granted to the respondent wife comes even less than 1/4^th of the income of the present petitioner and as such, the same may not be considered as excessive on any count. This finding of the learned Sessions Judge, Hailakandi, in the considered opinion of this Court, may not be regarded as a perverse finding on any count.

It also appears from the impugned judgment that it also took into consideration the fact that enhancement of interim maintenance awarded to the present respondent from Rs. 4,000/- to Rs. 8,000/- was made only after direction of the Sessions Judge in the appeal preferred by the present petitioner before the learned Sessions Judge, Hailakandi, at the first instance, wherein it was categorically directed to the learned Judicial Magistrate to pass a fresh order of maintenance after considering the affidavit of assets and liabilities to be submitted by the present petitioner.

The Apex Court in the case of Rajnesh Vs. Neha (Supra), while considering the criteria to be taken into consideration for determining the quantum of maintenance, has observed as follows:

In the instant case, on perusal of the affidavit on assets and liabilities submitted by the present petitioner, it appears that in the Column No. 7 of the said affidavit, the petitioner has shown his medical expenses as Rs. 10,000/- per month and his liabilities towards repayment of loan as Rs. 10,432/-, however, no details thereof have been furnished. As such, the monthly expenditure incurred by the present petitioner as shown in his affidavit of assets and liabilities does not inspire confidence of this Court.

In any view of the matter, on perusal of the judgment of the court of the learned Sessions Judge, Hailakandi, which has been impugned in this revision petition, it appears that the learned Sessions Judge, Hailakandi, has taken into consideration the fact that while passing the order of enhancement of the monthly maintenance amount, the learned Judicial Magistrate has taken into consideration all the relevant factors which should be looked into before passing an order of interim maintenance in a case under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. This Court does not find any jurisdictional error or any perversity, justifying exercise of its revisional power to interfere with the judgment of the Appellate Court, which has been impugned in this revision petition. While exercising its revisional jurisdiction, this Court cannot sit as a Court of appeal over the impugned order, which is an order passed by the Appellate Court under Section 29 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The enhancement of interim maintenance from Rs. 4,000/- to Rs. 8,000/- per month does not appears to be excessive under the facts and circumstances of this case.

In view of the discussions made and reasons stated in the foregoing paragraphs, this Court does not find any grounds to interfere with the impugned order of the Appellate Court.

The instant Revision Petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

The petitioner is directed to comply with the impugned judgment and also to pay the outstanding dues in respect of the interim maintenance amount awarded to the respondent by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Hailakandi, in DV Case No.56/2021.

Amita Sharma 2026.08.17 16:46:16 +05'30'