Tripura High Court
Sri Nepal Chandra Bhowmik vs Smt. Mallika Debnath on 24 November, 2021
Page 1 of 4
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
Crl. Rev. P. No.36 of 2021
Sri Nepal Chandra Bhowmik, Age:46
Son of late Khitish Ch. Bhowmik, R/o: Kalshimukh, P.S-Baikhura,
District : South Tripura.
............... Petitioner
Vs.
Smt. Mallika Debnath,
Daughter of late Radhabinod Debnath, R/o: C/o Hare Krishna Debnath
(Teacher), Son of Subal Debnath, South Badharghat, (ONGC Bank
Chowmuhani), P.O: ONGC, P.S :Amtali, Pin-799014.
............... Respondent(s).
For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Nibedita Ghosh, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Samar Das, Advocate.
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. G. CHATTOPADHYAY
ORDER
24/11/2021
This criminal revision petition has been filed to challenge the
order dated 26.02.2021 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Agartala,
West Tripura in Misc.(Int.) 156 of 2020 whereby the Family Court
directed the petitioner-husband to pay a monthly sum of Rs.5,000/- to
his respondent-wife towards her maintenance.
[2] Heard Ms. Nibedita Ghosh, learned counsel representing
the petitioner-husband. Heard Mr. Samar Das, learned counsel
representing the respondent-wife.
[3] It is submitted by Ms. Nibedita Ghosh, learned counsel
that divorce has been granted by the Family Court in favour of the
petitioner-husband on the ground of cruelty. Moreover, the
respondent-wife has been living in the house owned by the petitioner-
Crl. Rev. P. No.36 of 2021
husband. Counsel further submits that petitioner-husband is a poor
day labourer, who is not able to pay such huge sum of Rs.5000/- per
month to his respondent-wife for no fault of him. Counsel submits that
the impugned order passed by the Family Court would demonstrate
that no material was placed before the Family Court for determination
of the income and liability of the petitioner-husband. Even thereafter,
the Family Court granted a sum of Rs. 5,000/- to the respondent-wife.
Counsel therefore, urges the Court to set aside the impugned order.
[4] Mr. Samar Das, learned counsel representing the
respondent-wife on the other hand submits that the respondent-wife
has no source of income and she cannot survive without the support
of her petitioner-husband. Counsel submits that the husband has
suppressed the true facts about his property and income. According to
Mr. Das, learned counsel, the husband has got huge landed properties
at Belonia and other places within the State apart from his income
from various sources. Counsel therefore, urges the Court to uphold the
interim order of maintenance passed by the Family Court.
[5] Perused the record and considered the submissions of
leaned counsel representing the parties. The relevant extract of the
impugned order is as under:
"*****During hearing of the case prima facie it
appears that the petitioner has filed this petition
claiming interim maintenance from the OP but
from the judgment of the Addl. District Judge,
Belonia, vide No.TS(Div) 12 of 2012, it transpires
that OP in that case obtained a decree of divorce
u/s. 13(1)(a)(i)(b) of the H.M.Act, 1955 and the
Ld. Court dissolved the marriage between the
petitioner and the OP vide judgment Dt.
02.07.2014 ex parte as in that case the petitioner
Crl. Rev. P. No.36 of 2021
of this case did not turn up to contest that case.
Thereafter, the petitioner has preferred an appeal
before the Hon‟ble High Court for setting aside the
ex parte decree and reviving the case which is still
pending for hearing. The petitioner as per her
petition resides in the 2nd house of the OP which is
situated at Kartik Chowmohani. The OP has
admitted that the petitioner is forcefully residing in
that house. Although, the respondent has got an
ex parte decree of divorce against the petitioner,
but the petitioner has challenged the same. As per
explanation (b) of Sec. 125(b), the word „wife‟
includes divorced wife who has not remarried.
Therefore, it can be concluded that the petitioner
in this case is entitled to maintenance from the OP
at this stage. However, in this case the petitioner
has not specifically given any documentary
evidence as to the profession and income of the
OP. Therefore, being able bodied considering the
average income of the OP as a day labourer, the
interim maintenance is fixed at Rs.5,000/- per
month.
Situated thus, the OP is hereby directed to
pay Rs.5,000/- per month to the petitioner as
interim maintenance w.e.f., 08.01.2021 payable to
her Savings Bank Account or remit the same by
Money order within 10th day of every English
Calendar month till disposal of the main
application of maintenance vide No. Misc. 155 of
2020.
The Misc. Case for interim maintenance is
thus disposed of accordingly.***"
[6] It appears from the said findings recorded by the Family
Court that no evidence was adduced by the respondent-wife who was
the petitioner before the Family Court with regard to the occupation
and income of her husband. The Family Court then guessed his income
and granted an interim maintenance of an amount of Rs.5,000/- per
month. Admittedly, the parties do not have any child and the
petitioner-husband has a lot of dependents other than the respondent.
Therefore, it would be appropriate to reduce the amount to Rs.2,500/-
which shall be paid by the petitioner-husband to the respondent-wife
Crl. Rev. P. No.36 of 2021
during the pendency of the proceedings before the Family Court under
Section 125 Cr. P.C. Arrears which have fallen due with effect from
08.01.2021 shall be paid in installment by the petitioner-husband to
his wife along with the monthly maintenance allowance at the rate of
Rs.200/- per month. Therefore, the petitioner-husband shall pay
Rs.2,700/- with effect from 01.11.2021 payable within the 7th day of
the following month onwards till the whole amount of arrear is paid.
After the arrear is paid, he will be paying Rs.2500/- until disposal of
the main proceeding before the Family Court or until further order
made by the Family Court. In case of default in payment of the said
maintenance allowance, the Family Court will take appropriate step in
accordance with law to enforce such payment. The payment shall be
made by the petitioner-husband by way of depositing the amount in
the bank account of the respondent-wife for which the respondent
shall supply the details of her bank account to the petitioner within
three days.
[7] In terms of the above, the criminal revision petition is
disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed
of.
Send back the LCR.
JUDGE
Dipankar
Crl. Rev. P. No.36 of 2021
