Sri Piplu Ghosh vs Smt. Archana Das
2021 Latest Caselaw 1256 Tri

                            HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                                  AGARTALA

                            Crl. Rev. P. No. 09 of 2020

Sri Piplu Ghosh
                                                       ...................Petitioner(s)
                               Versus

Smt. Archana Das
                                                     ...................Respondent(s)

For Petitioner(s)       :      None.

For Respondent(s)       :      Mr. D. Datta, Adv.

               HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G. CHATTOPADHYAY
                                        Order

15/12/2021

Petitioner has challenged the judgment and order dated

30.07.2019 passed by the Family Court, Agartala, West Tripura in case

No. Misc.370 of 2018 in a proceeding under section 125 Cr.P.C whereby

the learned Addl. Judge, Family Court, Agartala directed the petitioner

husband to pay monthly maintenance allowance of Rs.10,000/- per

month viewing as under:

"7. Analyzing the evidence of the petitioner side it is clear from their evidence that the petitioner of this case is the legally married with the O.P. and the petitioner was tortured by the O.P. of this case. The O.P. side failed to adduce his evidence and hence, there is nothing to disbelieve the evidence of the petitioner. The petitioner of this case though stated in her evidence that the O.P. is a Govt. employee and his monthly salary is Rs.45,000/- but the petitioner failed to adduce any documentary evidence relating to such income of the O.P. However, considering the fact that the claim of the petitioner is that the O.P. is a L.D.C. in Health Department his monthly salary is assessed @ Rs.30,000/-.

8. Now it is to be decided that what should be the quantum of maintenance the petitioner is entitled to get.

Accordingly, from above discussion made I am of the considered opinion that the petition filed by the petitioner U/S 125 of Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance from the O.P. of this case has got merit and accordingly the same is hereby allowed.

9. In the result the O.P. is hereby directed to pay maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month to the petitioner from 01.08.2019 until further order. The O.P. is also directed to pay such maintenance to the petitioner within 10th day of every English calendar month by money order after remitting the cost of money order therefrom until further order."

After the criminal revision petition was admitted, notice was

issued to the petitioner. He appointed advocate and entered into

appearance. The names of his advocates are also indicated in today's

cause list but none appears when the case is called out for hearing.

Heard Mr. D. Datta, learned counsel representing the

respondent wife.

It appears to the court that the petitioner is not interested in

further prosecution of the case. Therefore, the case stands dismissed for

non prosecution. Interim stay, if any, shall also stand vacated.

In terms of the above, the matter is disposed of. Pending

application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

JUDGE

Rudradeep