Sri Rakesh Datta vs Smti. Ankita Sarkar
2021 Latest Caselaw 958 Tri

                                   1



                      HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                            AGARTALA
                        Crl. Rev.P. 46 of 2021
Sri Rakesh Datta S/O- Sri Laxman Datta, At present posted at Care of
Sri Gopal Sharma, Ramkrishna Pally, Near Fire Service, Bishramganj,
P.S.- Bishramganj, Dist- Sepahijala Tripura
                                                   -----Petitioner(s)

                                Versus
Smti. Ankita Sarkar W/O- Sri Rakesh Datta, Present Address- Care of
Mantu Sarkar, Vill- Garjanmura, P.S.- Kakraban, Udaipur, Dist-
Gomati Tripura.                                  -----Respondent(s)

BEFORE

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

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. P.Maishan, Adv.

For Respondent(s)         :     None

Date of hearing and       :     23.09.2021
Judgment/Order
Whether fit for reporting :     Yes/No.

                      Judgment and Order (Oral)
[1]          By means of filing this Criminal Revision Petition,

petitioner Rakesh Datta has challenged the order dated 29.07.2021

passed by the Family Court, Udaipur in Criminal Misc. No. 107 of

2019 whereby the petitioner was directed to pay a monthly sum of

Rs.4000/- to his wife as maintenance allowance under Section 125

Cr.P.C. Since the order was given effect from 30.09.2019 i.e. from

the date of its filing, the petitioner husband was directed to pay an

additional monthly sum of Rs.1000/- along with the principal amount

of Rs.4000/- until payment of the whole arrear.

[2] Factual background of the case is as under:

Present petitioner Rakesh Datta married Smt. Ankita

Sarkar of Udaipur in accordance with the rites and customs of Hindu

marriage on 28.01.2019. The marriage was solemnized in the house

of the bride. Few days after the marriage, her petitioner husband

started torturing Ankita to fulfill his demand of dowry. He demanded

a sum of Rs.1 Lakh from her parents. Since her parents could not

appease his demand, Ankita was physically tortured by him. She was

even denied food at her matrimonial home. Unable to bear the torture

of her husband, she returned to her parents and claimed maintenance

allowance from him by filing a petition under Section 125 Cr.PC.

[3] In this factual background, the Family Court, Udaipur

admitted her case and issued notice to her husband to appear and

submit his reply. By filing a written objection, the husband who is the

petitioner before this court, denied the allegations of his wife and

asserted that he was always willing to bring back his wife. But, she

declined to come back to her matrimonial home. He pleaded that he

was a poor salaried temporary employee in the power department of

the State Government having a monthly salary of Rs.12,000/-. He

therefore, urged the Family Court for dismissal of the petition of his

wife. His wife Ankita, however, persuaded her case by producing

witnesses before the Family Court. Besides adducing her own

evidence, she examined her mother Rupashi Sarkar as PW-2 and Mst.

Anufa Khatun as PW-3 who acted as the mediator of their marriage.

The petitioner husband did not appear to cross-examine the

witnesses.

[4] Subsequently the learned Judge, Family Court, relied on

the un-rebutted testimony of the witnesses who supported the

allegations of the wife with regard to the maltreatment meted out to

her at her matrimonial home. Having relied on the cogent and

consistent evidence of the witnesses of the wife, the leaned Judge,

Family Court arrived at the conclusion that despite having ability to

maintain his wife, the husband was neglecting her maintenance who

was absolutely unable to maintain herself. The learned Judge of the

Family Court, therefore, granted a monthly sum of Rs.4000/- to the

wife as her monthly maintenance allowance holding as under:

"Though the petitioner claimed that the O.P earns Rs.25,000/- per month yet in support of her claim she did not submit any document. The Opposite party in his written statement admitted that he is a Government employee but in his written statement it is also mentioned that he gets Rs.12,000/- per month as his salary as he works on temporary basis. No document is submitted by either of the party regarding the monthly salary of the O.P.

Hence, considering the minimum need of the petitioner and the income of the O.P, I think it would meet the ends of justice if the OP pays Rs.4000/-(rupees four thousand) per month to the petitioner w.e.f 30.09.2019(i.e. from the date of filing). From the next month the O.P will be paying Rs.4000/-(rupees four thousand) as monthly maintenance within the first week of every English calendar month through money order and the money order commission will be borne by the O.P. In addition to Rs.4000/-(rupees four thousand) he will be giving Rs.1,000/- (rupees one thousand) more as an arrear amount of maintenance as he is to pay maintenance w.e.f 30.09.2019(i.e. from the date of filing as per the Judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Crl.Appeal no.730 of 2020 passed in Rajnesh vrs. Neha & Anr.)

The amount of maintenance can be remitted to the bank account of the Petitioner if her bank account details is furnished lateron"

[5] Heard Mr. Pradyot Maishan, learned advocate appearing

for the petitioner husband along with Mr.Jiban Krishna Debnath,

learned advocate. Perused the entire record including the impugned

order dated 29.07.2021 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court,

Udaipur.

[6] Aggrieved husband has challenged the impugned order

mainly on the following grounds:

(i)The Family Court did not appreciate the fact that the wife had no convincing ground to justify her separate living and as such, the Family Court passed an erroneous order without following the provisions laid down under sub-section (4) of Section 125 Cr.P.C.

(ii)The Family Court did not also appreciate the fact that desirous of having back his wife, petitioner

husband filed a petition in the Family Court at Agartala under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for restitution of conjugal rights which was pending as TS (RCR)86 of 2019.

(iii)While granting monthly maintenance allowance of Rs.4000/- along with an additional sum of Rs.1000/- per month as installment of arrear, family court did not consider the income and capacity of the petitioner husband who was earning a meager monthly sum of Rs.12,000/- only and with the said amount he was also maintaining other members of his family consisting of his parents.

[7] While arguing for admission of the case, Mr. Maishan,

learned counsel contended that petitioner husband was quite unable to

pay this huge amount of monthly maintenance allowance. According

to Mr.Maishan, learned advocate, the wife has been living away from

her husband right from the beginning of their marital life without any

justifiable reason. Husband tried his best to bring her back, but, she

declined. Thereafter, the husband had resorted to law for restitution

of conjugal rights by filing a petition in the Family Court at Agartala.

[8] Counsel contends that without appreciating these facts

and circumstances peculiar to the case, the Family Court arbitrarily

passed an order against the petitioner husband directing him to pay a

huge amount of maintenance allowance. Counsel, therefore, urges the

court to hear the case on merit after admission of the case.

[9] The impugned judgment demonstrates that the petitioner

forfeited his opportunity to appear and contest the case of his wife by

cross examining her witnesses. He did not take part in the

proceedings before the Family Court even after filing the written

objection. The petitioner does not deny his marital relationship with

Ankita Sarkar. He does not also deny that after marriage Ankita lived

with him at his place for a considerable period and thereafter she left

her matrimonial home.

[10] Relying on the un-rebutted testimony of the witnesses,

the learned Judge of the family court by an elaborate order decided

the matter and granted maintenance allowance to the wife of the

petitioner. Petitioner could have projected his case before the Family

Court by cross examining the witnesses of his wife. He did not avail

such opportunity. Admittedly he is a Government employee having a

monthly salary of more than Rs.12,000/-.

[11] In these circumstances, a monthly maintenance

allowance of Rs.4000/- granted by the Family Court is quite

reasonable. Petitioner has failed to make out any ground to interfere

with the impugned judgment. His petition is devoid of merit and as

such the same stands rejected. He is directed to pay the amount of

maintenance allowance along with the installment of arrear to his

wife in terms of the order passed by the Family Court failing which

the learned Judge, Family Court will enforce the order in accordance

with law.

[12] Mode of payment prescribed by the family court requires

modification to ensure regular payment of such allowance. Petitioner

is directed to deposit the monthly maintenance allowance along with

the installment of the arrear in terms of the order of the Family Court

by transferring the money into the individual bank account of his

wife.

[13] Resultantly, the criminal revision petition stands

dismissed.

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

Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed

of.

JUDGE

Saikat Sarma,PA