The High Court of Tripura dismissed a revision petition filed against the judgment in which the family court directed the petitioner husband to pay a monthly allowance of Rs. 50,000 to the respondent wife. The court ruled that the petitioner's arguments lacked evidence and granted the respondent a monthly maintenance allowance of Rs. 50,000 due to marital discord and the petitioner's neglect of financial obligations despite a substantial income.
Brief Facts:
The respondent filed a maintenance petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. against her husband, the petitioner, stating that their marriage was solemnized under the Special Marriage Act 1954 and took place in 2003. Both had children from previous marriages. The respondent alleged cruelty by the petitioner, citing interference in her religious practices, assault, and imposition of his food habits. Despite different opinions, the petitioner assaulted her, leading to injuries. The petitioner allegedly neglected financial responsibilities, causing the respondent to seek help from her family. A physical altercation in 2019 led to her seeking refuge at her parents' house and when she came back, the house was locked and the respondent didn’t receive her calls, and since then deserted the respondent. The respondent claimed Rs. 1 lakh per month as maintenance, while the petitioner contended that she left voluntarily after he refused to adopt her child which he was not aware of before. The Family Court ordered the petitioner to pay Rs. 50,000 per month. Thus, the present petition has been filed.Top of Form
Contentions of the Appellant:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant contended that the learned court below did not consider the fact raised by the petitioner that he could know the existence of one daughter of the respondent's wife of her earlier marriage after 3 years and thus, the respondent suppressing the said fact cheated him and applied fraud upon him. It is further contended that the respondent voluntarily left her matrimonial home as such she was not entitled to get any maintenance and there is no observation/ findings as to how the Learned Court determined the quantum of maintenance and in the absence of the same, there is no scope to sustain that order.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent contended that the grounds projected in the revision petition are vague and cannot be considered because if for argument's sake, the petitioner could know the existence of a daughter of the respondent after 3 years of marriage, in that case, he could challenge that marriage but no legal steps were taken on his part challenging the marriage. It is further contended that the petitioner has a salary of more than 3 lakhs per month and considering that, Rs. 1 lakh was supposed to be awarded, thus it is urged to enhance the quantum of maintenance awarded by the trial court.
Observations of the Court:
The court observed that the petitioner's arguments were primarily centered around two points. Firstly, it contended that the lower court did not address the issue of the respondent suppressing the fact of having a daughter at the time of marriage. Secondly, it argued that the lower court did not provide specific observations or findings when fixing the monthly maintenance allowance at Rs. 50,000 but the court refuted these contentions, stating that there was no evidence on record from the petitioner's side challenging the respondent's claims of suppression.
The court further observed that the evidence presented indicated some marital discord between the parties, leading to the respondent leaving her matrimonial home and seeking refuge with her parents and it was also noted that the petitioner, being the lawful husband, neglected to provide maintenance, while having a monthly income exceeding Rs. 3 lakhs. On the other hand, the respondent's monthly income of Rs. 10,000 was deemed insufficient for her livelihood.
The court referred to relevant principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, emphasizing the limited scope for a revisional court to reassess the evidence and concluded that the lower court, after exhaustive consideration of all aspects, had rightfully granted a maintenance allowance of Rs. 50,000 per month to the respondent.
The decision of the Court:
The court dismissed the appeal.
Case Title: Milanmoy Dewan vs. Sharmistha Dewan
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Biswajit Palit
Case No.: Criminal Revision Petition No. 23 OF 2023
Advocate for the Applicant: Mr. C.S. Sinha
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. P. Roy. Barman, Mr. S. Bhattacharjee
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :