Tripura High Court
Md. Ataur Rahaman vs Mst. Neharun Neecha And Others on 22 August, 2022
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
Crl.Rev.P.33 of 2022
Md. Ataur Rahaman
..........Petitioner(s)
Versus
Mst. Neharun Neecha and Others
..........Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. K. Roy, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Ms. R. Purakayastha, Adv.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T. AMARNATH GOUD
Order
22/08/2022
Heard Mr. K. Roy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as
Ms. R. Purakayastha, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
2. This is a criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401
of the Cr.P.C. against the impugned judgment and order dated 06.09.2021 passed by
the learned Sessions Judge, North Tripura, Dharmanagar in Criminal Revision Petition
11 of 2019 whereby the learned Sessions Judge, North Tripura, Dharmanagar
interfered with the Judgment and order dated 27.08.2019 passed by the learned
Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Dharmanagar, North Tripura in Case No.03 of 2017 and
enhanced the maintenance allowance from Rs.2,500 each to Rs.7,500/- each.
3. The brief fact is that the petitioner and the respondent No.1 are the
husband and wife and respondent No.2 is their daughter aged about 33 years of age.
The respondents No.1 and 2 jointly filed an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C.
and the same was registered and marked as Misc.01 of 2015. After hearing the parties,
the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Dharmanagar, North Tripura vide judgment and
order dated 18.11.2015 granted the maintenance in favour of the respondents No.1
and 2 @ Rs.1,500/- each and the petitioner was directed to pay the same. Thereafter,
the respondents No.1 and 2 jointly filed another application under Section 127 of the
Cr.P.C. for enhancement of the maintenance allowance and the same was registered
and marked as Misc.03 of 2017.
4. To prove the case on behalf of the respondents, two witnesses were
examined and on the other hand, the petitioner adduced two witnesses. After hearing
both the sides, the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Dharmanagar, North Tripura vide
Judgment and Order dated 27.08.2019 enhanced the maintenance from Rs.1,500/-
each to Rs.2,500/- each.
5. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order dated
27.08.2019, passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Dharmanagar, North Tripura
in Case No. Misc.03 of 2017 the respondents No.1 and 2 jointly filed a revision petition
before the Sessions Judge, Dharmanagar, North Tripura and the same was registered
and marked as Criminal Revision No.11 of 2019. On receipt of the summon, the
petitioner appeared before the Sessions Judge and filed a detailed written objection
contending inter alia that he would retire from service on 31 st January, 2021. In the
written objection he has also contended that his gross salary is about Rs.60,000/- and
after deduction he is getting Rs.10,725/-. In the objection he has clearly stated that by
taking House Building Loan, he constructed one building on his purchased land, but he
was driven out by his wife and his children from that constructed home. He has also
stated that as per demand of his son, he has also purchased a Motor Bike after taking
loan from the Bank.
6. After hearing the parties, the Sessions Judge vide judgment and order
dated 06.09.2021 allowed the Revision Petition and modified the judgment and order
dated 27.08.2019 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Dharmanagar, North
Tripura by enhancing the maintenance allowance of Rs.2,500 each to Rs.7,500/- each.
7. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order
dated 06.09.2021 passed by the Sessions Judge, Dharmanagar, North Tripura in
Criminal Revision Petition No.11 of 2019 the petitioner has preferred the instant
criminal revision petition.
8. Mr. K. Roy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that
the petitioner has retired on March, 2022 and his basic salary comes around
Rs.32,250/-. He has submitted that the court below has committed serious error in
allowing maintenance allowance in favour of the respondent No.2 who is the major
daughter of the petitioner and at present, she is aged about 33 years. As per Section
125 of the Cr.P.C. only minor children are entitled to maintenance. According to him,
the Court below has failed to appreciate the same and allowed maintenance in favour
of the major daughter of the petitioner who is aged about 33 years. Hence, the order
passed by the court below is liable to be interfered with.
9. In reply, Ms. R. Purakayastha, learned counsel appearing for the
respondents has submitted a daughter is legally entitled till her marriage.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to Para 12 of the written
objection in Crl. Revision 11 of 2019 where it has been stated that on 24.11.2014 the
petitioner along with the family members of her father suddenly attacked the OP in the
kitchen room of the house and beaten him mercilessly and driven him out from building
and for which took shelter in his brother's house. Since then, the petitioner wife, eldest
daughter prevented the OP to take entry or to live in his building house. On the other
hand, the petitioner wife has been selling big trees of the said house without the
consent of OP husband. He has clearly stated that by taking House Building Loan, he
constructed one building on his purchased land, but he was driven out by his wife and
his children from that constructed home. In the written objection he has also
contended that his gross salary is about Rs.60,000/- and after deduction he is getting
Rs.10,725/-.
11. Learned counsel for the respondents has clearly submitted that the
petitioner is himself enjoying his salary without giving any kind of maintenance to his
wife and his daughter.
12. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and on
scrutinized the records this court do not find sufficient force in the submission of the
learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.
13. In the result, the criminal revision petition is dismissed. The judgment and
order passed by the court below stands affirmed.
JUDGE
Sabyasachi B
