Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/5 vs Smti Alpana Gogoi Pathak on 6 August, 2025
Page No.# 1/5
GAHC010033802025
2025:GAU-AS:10261
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : CRP(IO)/61/2025
SRI BIKRAMJIT PATHAK
SON OF LATE JUGAL PATHAK, RESIDENT OF- RANGAPANI PARA, PO-
SRIJAN GRAM P.S.- ABHAYAPURI DIST-BONGAIGAON PIN- 783384
VERSUS
SMTI ALPANA GOGOI PATHAK
WIFE OF- SRI BIKRAMJIT PATHAK R/O-BAGHCHUNG, KUWARI PUKHURI
P.O AND P.S AND DIST.- JORHAT PIN-785616
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR D CHUTIA, MR. K R BORA,R GOGOI
Advocate for the Respondent : ,
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN
ORDER
Date : 06.08.2025
Heard Mr. K.R. Bora, learned counsel for the petitioner. None appears for the
respondent on call.
2. It is to be noted here that though notice upon the respondent was served,
yet the respondent chooses not to contest this petition.
Page No.# 2/5
3. In this petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner
has challenged the order dated 22.11.2024, passed by the learned District
Judge, Jorhat, in Misc. (J) Case No. 14/2024, arising out of Title Suit (Marriage)
No. 35/2022.
4. It is to be noted here that vide impugned order, dated 22.11.2024, the
learned District Judge, Jorhat had allowed the application filed by the
respondent herein, under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking
maintenance pendente-lite and cost of proceeding and directed the petitioner to
pay an interim monthly maintenance of Rs. 8,000/-, and also to pay Rs.
30,000/- as litigation expenses to the respondent.
5. Mr. Bora, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent
herein is the wife of the petitioner and both of them are serving in Police
Department as Constable and they were blessed with two children, and after
the birth of their children, marital discord surfaced between them and now they
are living separately. Mr. Bora also submits that the petitioner has been paying
maintenance to his two children @ Rs. 12,000/- per month, pursuant to
judgment and order dated 12.06.2023, passed by the learned Judicial
Magistrate 1st Class, Jorhat, in Misc. Case No. 74/2019, and thereafter, the
respondent herein had instituted one divorce proceeding, being Title Suit
(Marriage) No. 35/2022, which is pending before the Court of learned District
Judge, Jorhat.
5.1. Mr. Bora further submits that in the aforesaid proceeding, the respondent
had filed one petition under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, seeking
maintenance pendente-lite and cost of the proceeding, and upon the said
petition, the learned District Judge, Jorhat had registered a case, being Misc. (J)
Page No.# 3/5
Case No. 14/2024, and thereafter, hearing both the parties and also considering
the affidavit of assets and liabilities and income, in terms of the direction issued
by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajnesh Vs. Neha & Anr.,
reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324, vide impugned order dated 22.11.2024,
directed the petitioner to pay interim maintenance to the respondent @ Rs.
8,000/- per month and also Rs. 30,000/- being litigation expenses.
5.2. Mr. Bora further submits that in the affidavit filed by the respondent in
Misc. (J) Case No. 14/2024, which is enclosed with the present petition as
Annexure-10, the respondent has not disclosed the name of her employer, her
designation, her monthly income and other liabilities, and the said affidavit is a
false one. Referring to the additional affidavit filed by the petitioner, enclosing
the salary certificate of the respondent, for the month of April, 2025, Mr. Bora
submits that she has been serving as Constable (UB) in Jorhat and her total
income is Rs. 63,601/-, and her salary certificate for the months of May and
June, 2025, also indicates that she has been drawing Rs. 63,601/- per month.
Mr. Bora submits that the petitioner herein is also serving in the same
Department and besides, he has been paying maintenance to his children @ Rs.
12,000/- per month, and since the respondent has been drawing salary of Rs.
63,601/- per month, allowing of interim maintenance, vide impugned order
dated 22.11.2024, @ Rs. 8,000/- per month and the litigation expenses is illegal
and arbitrary, and on such count, Mr. Bora has contended to set aside the same.
6. Having heard the submission of Mr. Bora, learned counsel for the petitioner,
I have carefully gone through the petition and the documents placed on record,
and also perused the impugned order dated 24.11.2024, and also the affidavit
(Annexure-10) disclosing the assets and liabilities filed by the respondent herein
before the learned District Judge, Jorhat, and the additional affidavit filed by the
Page No.# 4/5
petitioner.
7. From a careful perusal of the aforesaid affidavit (Annexure-10) filed by the
respondent, it appears that Clause-F does not disclose the name of her
employer, designation, monthly income, and also she has not enclosed the
salary certificate as required in the sub-clause-1, 2, 3, and 4 of Clause-F, and
that she merely stated the said data as NA, meaning thereby not available.
8. On the other hand, the additional affidavit filed by the petitioner, enclosing
the salary certificates of the respondent, indicates that she has been drawing
Rs. 63,601/- per month, but this material fact has been suppressed by the
respondent and the aforementioned data were not made available before the
learned District Judge, Jorhat in the proceeding of Misc. (J) Case No. 14/2024.
And on such count, the impugned order dated 22.11.2024, to the considered
opinion of this Court, fails to withstand the legal scrutiny.
9. It is to be noted here that in the case of M.C.D. vs. State of Delhi
and Anr., reported in (2005) 4 SCC 605, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held
that a person, who does not approach the Court with clean hands, and if his
case is based on falsehood, the case of such person should summarily be
thrown out at any stage of litigation.
10. In the case in hand, it appears that the respondent has not approached
this Court with clean hands. She has not furnished her data in Clause-F of her
affidavit enclosing assets and liabilities as laid down in the case of Rajnesh
(supra).
11. Under the given facts and circumstances on the record, I find sufficient
merit in this petition and accordingly, the same stands allowed. The impugned
order dated 22.11.2024, stands set aside and quashed.
Page No.# 5/5
12. In terms of above, this revision petition stands disposed of.
13. Interim order passed earlier stands vacated.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant