Tripura High Court

Smt. Anita Das @ Anita Saha Das vs Sri Amar Das @ Dulal Dey on 12 November, 2021

                    HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                          AGARTALA
                      Crl.Rev.P.No.41 of 2020
Smt. Anita Das @ Anita Saha Das W/o. Sri Amar Das @ Dulal Dey,
Resident at C/o Late Chandan Das, Indranagar, Behind Indranagar
School, P.S. New Capital Complex, District- West Tripura
                                                 -----Petitioner(s)

                           Versus
1.Sri Amar das @ Dulal Dey S/o. Late Priya Lal Das, Resident of
Udal Pakra, Kanak Lata Path Gali, House No. 13, Near house of
Rajesh Dey, P.S. Lal Ganesh, Guwahati, Kamrup, Assam


2.The State of Tripura Represented by Ld. Public Prosecutor,
Hon'ble High Court of Tripura, Agartala.
                                         -----Respondent(s)

                          BEFORE

      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G. CHATTOPADHYAY
For Petitioner(s)   : Mr. R.G.Chakraborty, Adv.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ratan Datta, PP.
                    Mr.S.Datta, Adv.

                              ORDER

12.11.2021 [1] Case is taken up for final disposal in presence of

Mr.R.G.Chakraborty, counsel appearing for the petitioner and

Mr.S.Datta, counsel appearing for the private respondent as well as

Mr.Ratan Datta, learned PP representing the State respondent.

[2] The factual back ground of the case is as under:

Petitioner Amita Das is the wife of the private

respondent whose marriage was solemnized on 12.06.1979 in

accordance with the rites of Hindu marriage and after marriage the

petitioner accompanied her husband to his place where they lived

together for about 2 years in a rented house at Dhaleswar, Agartala.

All on a sudden, the respondent husband of the petitioner

disappeared. After about 01 month, he returned to the petitioner and

they lived in the same rented house at Dhaleswar for a period of 6

months. He again deserted the petitioner after 6 months. He returned

home after about 3 ½ years and met the petitioner at her parental

home when he assured her that he would never leave her again. They

rented a house at Indranagar and stayed together at that house for

about 15 months. During that period of their staying together, a son

was born to them. 03 months after the birth of the son, the

respondent again deserted his wife. Hapless petitioner started

working in a press to earn her livelihood. 14 years thereafter, her

husband returned and stayed together with the petitioner for about 7

days at her parental home. Again he left the petitioner for Guwahati.

Subsequently, he had taken his petitioner wife to Guwahati where

they lived together in different rented houses at different places for

about 3 years, before the respondent left the petitioner again. Then

the petitioner came to know about the reason of frequent

disappearance of her husband. She came to know that her husband

contracted a second marriage at Guwahati who was living in

Guwahati. After she came to know about the second marriage of her

husband, matrimonial discord developed between them. Ultimately,

the petitioner was compelled to leave Guwahati. Having returned to

Agartala, she filed petitioner under Section 125 Cr.P.C claiming

maintenance allowance from her husband which was registered in

the Family Court at Agartala as case No.Misc.157 of 2011. By

judgment and order dated 13.06.2014, petitioner was granted

monthly maintenance allowance of Rs.3,000/-.

[3] The respondent husband having failed to pay the

maintenance allowance so granted to the petitioner by the Family

Court, she approached the Family Court seeking enforcement of the

order in terms of Section 125(3) Cr.P.C. Her case was registered in

the Family Court as Case No. MISC 341 of 2014.

[4] Learned Family Court found that a sum of Rs.66,000/-

fell due to the petitioner as arrear of such maintenance allowance. By

an order dated 09.08.2019 passed in the aforesaid Misc. case No.341

of 2014, the Family Court proceeded to recover the arrear by issuing

an warrant to the jurisdictional Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate for

the levy of the amount by attachment and sale of the property of the

respondent. Thereafter, in view of the report submitted by the

jurisdictional Sub-Divisional Magistrate(SDM), the Family Court by

the impugned order dated 31.08.2019 dismissed her petition for

recovery of the arrear maintenance allowance holding as under:

"Petitioner is present.

Received the report of SDM, Sadar. On perusal of the report dated 20.08.2019 submitted by SDM, Sadar shows that the OP has already leased out land of Khatian No.1785 in the name of younger brother Swapan Das. Hence, such property cannot be attached.

In view of the above report of SDM, Sadar this court finds no scope to attach the immovable property of the OP.

Petitioner also submitted that she has no other alternative to take further steps for realization of the arrear maintenance so du against the OP.

Considering the submission of the petitioner, petitioner is granted to liberty to approach this court after obtaining proper documents of the JD for realization of arrear maintenance so due.

In view of the above, the instant case is disposed of granting a liberty to the petitioner to approach this court afresh by obtaining the property particulars of the JD.

Make necessary entries in the TR."

[5] Aggrieved petitioner has challenged the said order dated

31.08.2019 of the Family Court by means of filing this Criminal

Revision Petition.

[6] Mr.R.G.Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner submits that the Family Court has dismissed her petition

for recovery of her arrear maintenance of a sum of Rs.66,000/-

without exhausting the procedure laid down under sub-section(3) of

Section 125 Cr.P.C. Counsel submits that the Family Court should

have imprisoned the petitioner for breach of the order after it was

found that the arrear was not recoverable by issuing a warrant for

levying the amount due in the manner provided for levying fines.

Counsel urges the Court for issuing direction to the Family Court for

taking action in term of sub-section(3) of Section 125 Cr.P.C.

[7] Mr.S.Datta, learned counsel appearing for the

respondent has drawn the attention of this Court to the order dated

22.09.2021 passed by this Court directing the respondent to pay

Rs.10,000/- to the petitioner within 10 days pending disposal of this

case. Counsel submits that the respondent does not maintain any

rapport with him. Therefore, the learned counsel of the respondent

urges the Court to pass order as this Court may deem fit and proper.

[8] Mr.R.Datta, learned PP contends that the Family Court

may be directed to take appropriate measures for recovery of the

arrear maintenance allowance from the defaulting husband.

[9]         Perused the record.





             Considered      the   submissions   of   learned   counsel

appearing for the parties.


[10]         There is merit in the submissions of the counsel of the

petitioner that the Family Court should have proceeded in

accordance with the law laid down under sub-section (3) of Section

125 Cr.P.C. by way of sentencing the respondent husband of the

petitioner to imprisonment for breach of every order to recover the

maintenance after the process for recovery of the amount by way of

levying the amount due in the manner provided for levying fines

failed. Obviously, respondent husband has failed to show any reason

as to why he has failed to comply with the order of the Family Court

with regard to payment of maintenance allowance. Moreover, it

would appear from the order dated 22.09.2021 passed by this Court

that the respondent appeared before this Court in person and

submitted that the was trying to sell out his property to pay the arrear