Tripura High Court

Mamani Sarkar And Anr vs Prasenjit Sarkar And Anr on 24 February, 2021

                              HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                                    AGARTALA
                                     Crl.Rev.P.No.7of2020

             Mamani Sarkar and Anr.
             W/O Sri Prasenjit Sarkar Garjanmura, PS Kakraban, Udaipur,
             District-Gomati Tripura

             2.Trishna Sarkar D/O Sri Prasenjit Sarkar Garjanmura,
             P.S Kakraban, Udaipur,
             District-GomatiTripura
                                                 ......................Applicant(s)

                                             Versus
             Prasenjit Sarkar and Anr.
             S/O Sri Sukhen Sarkar C/o Alo Rani Das, Resident of Murapara
             (near Murapara School), Udaipur, PS-Kakraban, District-Gomati
             Tripura.
             2.The State of Tripura Represented by PP, High Court of Tripura,
             Agartala.
                                               ..................Respondent(s)

For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. A. Acharjee, Adv.

For the Respondent(s) : Mr. S. Ghosh, Addl. PP

Whether fit for reporting: No.

BEFORE

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.CHATTOPADHYAY

J u d g m e n t & O r d e r(Oral)

24.02.2021

[1] This Criminal Revision Petition has been filed by the

petitioner wife challenging the judgment and order dated

21.03.2016 passed by the Family court, Udaipur in Gomati

Judicial District in Criminal Misc./FC/UDP No.78 of 2016 granting

maintenance allowance of a sum of Rs.1,000/- per month to the

daughter of the petitioner while declining to grant any

CRP/7/2020 maintenance allowance to the petitioner wife. Aggrieved by and

dissatisfied with the said order of the family court, Udaipur,

petitioner Smt. Mamani Sarkar has filed this revision petition

seeking a direction from this court to her husband for providing

maintenance allowance to her.

[2] Prasenjit Sarkar, husband has not appeared in the

case despite receiving notice. It appears from the report of the

Registry that notice was duly served on him. In spite of having

adequate opportunities, the husband has neither appeared in

person, nor made his appearance through any advocate.

The matter is therefore, heard in his absence.

[3] Brief facts of the case are as under:

The wife being the petitioner filed an application

under Section 125 Cr.P.C. in the Family Court at Udaipur on

01.07.2016 for herself and her minor daughter seeking

maintenance allowance @Rs.3,000/- for each of them. In her

application, she brought various allegations against her husband.

It was alleged by her that after her marriage with the respondent

in accordance with the 'shastrik' rites of Hindu marriage she

accompanied her respondent husband to his place. Valuable

articles including jewelry, cash, furniture etc. were given by her

parents during the marriage. In spite of that, her husband was

not happy. After living a conjugal life for about 2 years, he

CRP/7/2020 started harassing her for dowry. He demanded Rs.10,000/- in

cash and subjected her to torture for bringing the money from

her parents. When the petitioner raised her protest against his

conduct, he physically assaulted her. Meanwhile, she conceived

and gave birth to a daughter. Her parents along with other

relatives met her husband several times and persuaded him to

behave properly with his wife. But he was incorrigible. On the

22nd day of Kartika in 1422. B.S. at about 11 o'clock in the

morning, her husband and in-laws had driven her out of her

matrimonial home. She, therefore, took shelter with her parents

and from where she filed this proceeding under Section 125

Cr.P.C. against her husband in the Family Court.

[4] The husband appeared and filed written objection

denying the allegations of his wife. He, however, admitted the

marriage and the paternity of the daughter. According to him

right from the beginning of the marriage, his wife was very

arrogant and she used to misbehave with him and his relatives.

Moreover, she was not at all serious to her matrimonial

obligations. She used to visit her parents any time she desired

without paying any heed to the inconvenience of her husband

and in-laws. She also started to maintain extramarital affairs.

When the husband voiced his protest, she became furious and

misbehaved with her husband. It was alleged by the husband

that his wife left her matrimonial home on her own volition. He

CRP/7/2020 never drove out her from his matrimonial home. According to the

respondent, he is a day labourer and his monthly income does

not exceed Rs.3000/- The husband, therefore, expressed his

inability to pay a sum of Rs.3000/- per month to his wife towards

her maintenance.

[5] The family court framed two issues on the basis of

the pleadings of the parties which are as under:

i) Whether the petitioner was tortured by the husband mentally and physically.

ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled to get the maintenance allowance as prayed for.

[6] In order to establish her case, the petitioner

examined 02 witnesses including herself PW-2, Smt. Ruma

Sarkar is the neighbor of the petitioner. The husband on the

other hand examined 03 witnesses including himself who were

examined as OPW-1, OPW-2 and OPW-3. OPW-2, Sukhen Sarkar is

the father of the respondent husband and OPW-3, Smt. Alorani

Sarkar is the mother of the respondent husband.

[7] PW-1 supported her claim during the trial. She

repeated the allegations which were projected by her in her

petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. It was alleged by her that

though her parents gave cash and jewelry of huge value in the

marriage, the respondent was not satisfied. He claimed more

CRP/7/2020 money and tortured the petitioner for bringing more money from

her parents and ultimately he drove out the petitioner, his wife,

from his home. She has also stated that she has no income to

support herself. Whereas her husband has monthly income of

Rs.10,000/- . In her cross examination she denied the

suggestions put to her on behalf of the husband.

[8] PW-2, Smt. Ruma Sarkar, neighbor of the petitioner

also supported her case that she was tortured by her husband

and ousted from his home and the fact that her husband was

neglecting to maintain her inspite of having sufficient income.

[9] The husband as OPW-1 on the other hand admitted

the fact that at the time of marriage, his in laws gave 35,000/-

in cash and color TV, furniture, utensils and jewelry of huge

value. As stated by him at the trial, his petitioner wife was not

interested in homestead work. She was always careless and she

used to live her matrimonial home without even informing her

husband and in-laws. According to the respondent he is an

assistant carpenter and his income from all sources never

exceeds Rs.6,000/- per month.

[10] OPW-2 Sukhen Sarkar, the father of the respondent

also supported the case of his son. According to him his daughter

in law was responsible for the split in the relationship between

her and her husband. OPW-2 also stated at the trial that her son

CRP/7/2020 was an assistant carpenter who used to earn not more than

Rs.1500/- per month.

[11] OPW-3, Smt.Alorani Sarkar who is the mother of the

husband has given similar evidence supporting the case of her

son.

[12] The family court assessed and evaluated the

evidence recorded at the trial and came to the conclusion that

the husband's case was more probable than that of his wife and

on this ground no maintenance allowance was given to the

petitioner wife. The family court granted a sum of Rs.1000/- per

month as maintenance allowance for the daughter. The

aggrieved petitioner has, therefore, challenged the order in this

criminal revision petition.

[13] Appearing for the petitioner, Mr.A.Acharjee learned

advocate submits that the petitioner gave enough evidence in

support of her claim in the family court. The fact that the

petitioner wife does not have any income is not disputed by her

husband. It is not also disputed by the respondent husband that

no amount of maintenance allowance was given either to the

petitioner or their daughter by her husband after they were

separated. It is submitted by Mr.Acharjee, learned counsel that

even after the order was passed by the family court granting

Rs.1000/- per month for their daughter, the respondent has not

CRP/7/2020 yet paid any amount pursuant to the said order of the family

court which indicates his neglect and carelessness towards his

wife and daughter. Learned Counsel, therefore, urges the court

to allow the maintenance allowance at least @Rs.2000/- per

month for the survival of the petitioner.

                         Also    heard       Mr.S.Ghosh,   learned   Addl.     PP

             representing the State respondent.


             [14]        It appears that the petitioner has been able to prove

the fact that she was harassed by her husband at her

matrimonial home which led to the separation between the

spouses. This court is of the view that there will be grave

miscarriage of justice if the impugned judgment of the family

court is not interfered with.

[15] Accordingly, the husband is directed to pay monthly

maintenance allowance @Rs.2000/- per month to his wife w.e.f.

the date of filing of her application i.e. from 01.07.2016. The

order of maintenance allowance @Rs.1000/- payable to his

daughter is also given effect from 01.07.2016.

[16] In the result, the husband will pay Rs.3000/- per

month to his wife w.e.f.01.07.2016 by depositing the same in