Tripura High Court
Shri Babul Kumar Saha vs Smt. Lipika Dey on 10 March, 2022
Page 1 of 5
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
CRL. REV P. NO.06 OF 2022
Shri Babul Kumar Saha,
S/o. Shri Putal Chandra Saha,
Resident of Village-Chandrapur, Colony No.7,
P.S.-R.K. Pur, Sub-Division-Udaipur,
District-Gomati Tripura.
......... Petitioner(s)
Vs.
Smt. Lipika Dey,
W/o. Shri Goutam Sarkar
D/o. Late Sankar Chandra Dey,
Resident of Brahmmabari,
Udaipur, P.S. R.K. Pur,
Sub-Division-Udaipur,
District-Gomati Tripura.
......Respondent(s)
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. I. Chakraborty, Advocate.
For the Respondent(s) : Ms. R. Purukayastha, Advocate.
Date of hearing and delivery of
Judgment & Order : 10.03.2022.
Whether fit for reporting : NO.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T. AMARNATH GOUD
JUDGMENT AND ORDER(ORAL)
This instant criminal revision petition has been filed
under Section 301 read with Section 397 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 for setting aside/quashing the
impugned order dated 13.01.2022 passed by the learned
Judge, Family Court, Udaipur, Gomati Tripura in connection
with Case No. Criminal Misc. (Ex) 25/2020 (arising out of
Criminal Revision 64/2018) and (arising out of Criminal
Revision Petition No.73/2019 of the Hon'ble High Court of
Tripura, Agartala) directing the opposite party-husband-
respondent to pay a sum of Rs.2,500/-(Rupees Two
Thousand Five hundred) only per month to the present wife-
respondent herein as monthly maintenance allowance w.e.f.
01.02.2020 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Tripura in
connection with Case No. Criminal Revision Petition
No.73/2019.
2. Heard Mr. I. Chakraborty, learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner as well as Ms. R. Purukayastha,
learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that the
respondent herein claiming that she has a relationship with
the petitioner gave birth to a male child and further she
made a claim for maintenance. Accordingly, during the
course of the Judicial proceeding, her request has been
accepted and a sum of Rs.2,500/- has been awarded
towards maintenance. Further the respondent has
preferred and execution proceeding case No. Criminal
Misc.(Ex)25/2021 in the Court of learned Judge, Family
Court, Udaipur, Gomati Tripura.
4. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has preferred
this instant revision petition.
5. During the course of the argument, Mr.
Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
has represented before this Court that there is no
relationship between the petitioner and the respondent-
lady. They are not married. Further, the respondent-lady is
already a married woman and subsequently, she has eloped
with some other person and she is not entitled to any
maintenance.
6. This Court has no hesitation to reject the
arguments of the petitioner-counsel since at the stage of
the pending of the execution proceeding, appreciation of the
factual position as well as reconsideration of the passing of
the maintenance and with regard to the relationship status
cannot be gone into.
7. Mrs. Purukayastha, learned counsel appearing for
the respondent-lady submits that since February 2020, the
petitioner is in due and he is supposed the pay the amount.
8. Further Mr. Chakraborty, learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner submits before this Court that if
the amount is deposited and the respondent-lady flew away
with the money under the wrong identity, it becomes for
him to recover the same from her.
9. While upholding the order of the Court in
awarding the maintenance or Rs.2,500/- per month as well
as without interfering with the execution proceedings, which
are pending before the Court below, this Court only directs
that the petitioner shall deposit the maintenance amounts
as directed by learned Family Court, Udaipur, District,
Tripura in Cr.Misc(Exe)-25 of 2020. On depositing the said
amount, the respondent-lady is at liberty to withdraw the
same from the Court by showing her identity proof. This
Court has not interfered with the earlier Judicial orders nor
with the execution proceedings. This Court by way of this
present revision petition has only made an arrangement for
depositing the amounts by petitioner and withdrawal to be
made by the respondent-lady under proper identity. The
respondent lady shall file an indemnity to the effect before
the Executive Court that in the event if the petitioner
succeeds in his declaration that respondent-lady is not his
wife, the petitioner is at liberty to proceed against her for
recovery of the amounts as already deposited towards the
maintenance.
10. Accordingly, this instant petition stands disposed of in
view of the above-mentioned directions and observation. As
a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall
stand closed.
JUDGE
suhanjit
