Tripura High Court
Present vs . on 4 August, 2023
Page 1 of 3
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
Crl. REV. P. NO.73 OF 2022
Sri Rajat Banik
Vs.
Smti. Lipi Chowdhury(Banik) and anr.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T. AMARNATH GOUD
Present:
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kohinoor N. Bhattacharjee, Advocate.
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. S. Bhattacharjee, Advocate.
Mr. K. Nath, Advocate.
04.08.2023
Order
This present revision has been filed under Section
19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 read with Sections 397 &
401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 challenging the
legality, correctness & propriety of the impugned Judgment
dated 15.07.2022 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court,
Agartala, West Tripura, bearing Case No. Clr.Misc.39/2021,
whereby the opposite party, the petitioner herein has been
directed to pay maintenance of Rs.8,000/- per month to
respondents No.1 & 2.
2. The brief fact of this case is that the marriage of
the parties was solemnized on 28.11.2013 as per Hindu Rites
and customs. After marriage, the parties started peaceful
conjugal life in the house of the petitioner-husband, and out of
their wedlock respondent No.2 was born. During the pregnancy,
respondent No.1-wife came to her parental home for better care
and regular check-up. Thereafter when he returned to her
matrimonial home, dispute began to raise between the
petitioner-husband and respondent-wife. Respondent-wife
alleged that she was tortured, abused, and not fed by the
petitioner and his family. Due to such torture, she went into
depression. In such circumstances, respondent No.1 was
compelled to leave her matrimonial house along with respondent
No.2 and since then the petitioner is not maintaining them. The
learned Court below after hearing both sides concluded that the
respondents No.1 & 2 are entitled to a maintenance from the
petitioner @ Rs.8000/- per month (Rs. 5000/- for respondent
No.1 and Rs.3000/- for respondent No.2).
3. Being aggrieved by the said impugned order of
paying maintenance dated 15.07.2022 passed in case
No.Crl.Misc.39/2021 by the learned Family Court, West Tripura,
Agartala, granting maintenance of Rs.5,000/-to the respondent
No.1 and Rs.3,000/- to respondent No.2, the petitioner-
respondent has filed this petition seeking to quash/set aside the
impugned Award.
4. Heard Mr. Kohinoor N. Bhattacharjee, learned
counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. S.
Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
5. Mr. Kohinoor N. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel
submits that the petitioner is working as an employee in a
private firm in Bangalore and learned Court below while passing
the impugned award of maintenance has not considered the
evidence on records in relation to the income and the
expenditure of the petitioner-husband. The petitioner has to
meet a monthly expenditure under various heads like repayment
of personal loan, Home loan, flat loan, etc.
6. Heard both sides and perused the evidence on
record.
7. Admittedly, the petitioner-husband is working in
Bangalore as an employee in a private firm and his income is
around Rs.70,000/- plus. But the petitioner has not given his
designation i.e. in which post and position he is employed.
Further, if the respondents have stayed with the husband-
petitioner then, he would have incurred much more than
Rs.8,000/- to maintain his wife and child. So this Court is of the
opinion that the impugned Award of maintenance dated
15.07.2022 passed in Clr.Misc.39/2021 by the learned Judge,
Family Court, West Tripura Agartala is just and proper and needs
no further interference. As such, the same is upheld and
affirmed.
8. With the above observation and direction, this
present revision petition stands dismissed. As a sequel, stay if
any stands vacated. Pending application(s), if any also stands
closed.
JUDGE
suhanjit
RAJKUMAR Digitally signed by
RAJKUMAR SUHANJIT
SUHANJIT SINGHA
Date: 2023.08.08 12:21:33
SINGHA +05'30'
