Tripura High Court
Sri Kabir Ahammed vs The State Of Tripura And Ors on 13 July, 2023
Page 1 of 3
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
CRL. REV P NO.32 OF 2022
Sri Kabir Ahammed
......... Petitioner(s)
Vs.
The State of Tripura and ors.
....... Respondent(s)
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. A. Dey, Advocate.
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. P.K. Dhar, Sr. Advocate.
Mr. R. Datta, P.P.
Mr. R. Debnath, Advocate.
Date of hearing and delivery of
Judgment & Order : 13.07.2023
Whether fit for reporting : NO.
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T. AMARNATH GOUD
JUDGMENT AND ORDER
This present revision petition has been filed under
Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure 1973 against the Judgment passed on 31.03.2021 in
connection with Criminal Misc.08 of 2020 wherein the learned
Judge, Family Court, Sonamura Sepahijala directed the petitioner
to pay maintenance allowance of Rs.6,000/- only per month to the
wife-petitioner and her minor child.
2. The brief fact of this case is that the wife-opposite
party got married to the petitioner on 14.10.2016 according to the
Muslim rites and customs and the said marriage was solemnized
on the negotiation made between the guardian of both the parties.
After the marriage, both the husband and wife-opposite party have
been living peacefully but after 2(two) months, disagreements and
conflict began to raise between them due to various reasons. After
a few months, the wife-opposite party got pregnant and delivered
a male child. Due to the disagreement and conflict, the wife-
opposite party filed a petition under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C.
wherein she sought for maintenance herself and for her minor
child. The husband-petitioner denied and disputed all allegations of
the wife-respondent herein. Further, the husband-petitioner herein
stated that he is unemployed and is having no source of income.
He is a day labour and earning a negligible amount in a month and
is not capable to give maintenance to the wife-opposite party. The
wife-opposite party at the time of leaving the husband's house
took all her golden ornament and documents. The wife opposite
party is running a Beauty Parlor situated at Shamali Baar and from
that source, she is earning Rs.8,000/- to Rs.10,000/- per month.
After hearing both sides, the Trial Court awarded Rs.6,000/- only
per month as maintenance.
3. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the
Judgment passed by the learned Trial Court, the petitioner has
preferred this present petition seeking to quash/set aside the
Judgment passed on 31.03.2021 by the learned Judge, Family
Court, Sonamura, Sepahijala in Criminal Misc. No.08 of 2020.
4. Mr. A. De, learned counsel appears for the petitioner.
Mr. R. Datta, learned P.P. appears for respondent No.1 and Mr.
P.K. Dhar, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Mr. R. Debnath, learned
counsel appears for respondents No.2 and 3.
5. Heard both sides and perused the evidence on record.
6. This Court has perused the Judgment dated
31.03.2021. The Court below in its Judgment stated that no
documentary evidence was adduced by the petitioner in support of
his claim that the wife-respondent is running a beauty parlour and
is earning from that source. Accordingly to this Court, the order
passed by the Court below that maintenance of Rs.6,000/- only
per month is to be paid to the wife-respondent and her minor son
by the petitioner herein is just and proper needs no further
interference.
7. With the above observation and direction, this present
petition stands dismissed and the Judgment dated 31.3.2021 is
confirmed and thus upheld. As a sequel, stay if any stands
vacated. Pending application(s) if any also stands closed.
JUDGE
suhanjit
RAJKUMA Digitally signed
by RAJKUMAR
R SUHANJIT
SUHANJIT SINGHA
Date: 2023.07.14
SINGHA 15:22:53 +05'30'
