Tripura High Court
Sri. Sandeep Deb vs Smt. Sanjukta Dey on 4 April, 2024
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
Crl.Rev.P. No.50 of 2023
Sri. Sandeep Deb,
S/O. Sri Narayan Ch. Deb,
R/O. Usha Bazar, New Bharat Ratna Club,
PS:-Airport, District:-West Tripura
.......... Petitioner
Versus
1.Smt. Sanjukta Dey,
W/O. Sri Sandeep Deb.
D/O. Sri Sankar Lal Dey.
2.Sompriya Deb,
D/O. Sri Sandip Deb,
(Being minor to be represented by her natural guardian, next of
kin and mother the Respondent No-1).
Both are residents of Krishnagar,
Near Haradhan Sangha, PO:-Agartala,
PS:- West Agartala, District:- West Tripura.
...Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R.G. Chakraborty, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. P. Roy Barman, Sr. Adv,
Mr. K. Nath, Adv.
Mr. D. Paul, Adv.
Date of Hearing : 01.04.2024
Date of delivery of
Judgment and Order : 04.04.2024
Whether fit for
Reporting : NO
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BISWAJIT PALIT
Judgment & Order
Heard Mr. R.G. Chakraborty, Learned Counsel for
the revision petitioner and also heard Learned Senior
Counsel, Mr. P. Roy Barman assisted by Mr. K. Nath and Mr.
D. Paul, Learned Counsel for the respondents. This Revision
Petition is filed under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act
1984, read with Section 401 and 397 of Cr.P.C. challenging
the order dated 03.05.2023 passed by Learned Additional
Family Judge, Family Court, Agartala, West Tripura in Misc.
28 of 2023. By the said order, Learned Additional Family
Judge, Family Court on the basis of reconciliation report
disposed of the case on the ground of compromise amongst
the parties and directed the petitioner-husband to pay
maintenance of Rs.9000/- per month to this wife.
02. In course of hearing of argument, Learned
Counsel for the petitioner submitted that although it was a
consented order and Learned Additional Judge, Family Court
directed the present petitioner to pay allowance of Rs.9000/-
per month to the wife, Smt. Sanjukta Dey, within first week
of every month but that order was passed beyond the
consent of the present petitioner-husband and more so, he is
not in a position to pay the said amount to the wife-
respondent and urged for remanding back the matter to the
Learned Additional judge, Family Court for denovo
proceeding for the sake of justice.
03. On the other hand, Learned Senior Counsel, Mr.
P. Roy Barman assisted by Mr. K. Nath and Mr. D. Paul,
Learned Counsel for the respondents, in course of hearing
submitted that before the Learned Family Court during the
stage of reconciliation, the matter was taken up for decision
amongst the rival parties and after prolong discussions, both
the parties had put their signatures on the settlement form
and accordingly, the Principal Counselor, Family Court
submitted report and on the basis of that report the case
was finally disposed of. So, at this stage, there is no scope
on the part of the petitioner-husband to challenge that order.
And it is also the settled position of the law that there is no
scope to challenge the compromised order/decree of the
Family Court.
04. I have seen the records of the Learned Court
below. It appears that during the process of reconciliation
the matter was settled amongst the parties and after
discussions, it was decided that the petitioner husband shall
pay Rs. 9000/- to the respondent-wife and accordingly, on
the basis of report of the Principal Counselor, the Learned
Additional Judge, Family Court disposed of the case by order
dated 03.05.2023. But before the Learned Additional Judge,
Family Court, the present petitioner-husband did not file any
petition nor sought for any redress that his signature was
obtained beyond his consent/free will.
It is to be noted here that before this Court also
an initiative was taken to settle the dispute amongst the rival
parties but after prolong discussions it was found that there
is no immediate chance of settlement amongst the rival
parties of this longstanding dispute.
05. In Velayudhan vs. Deepa & Anr. dated
23.09.2011 reported in (2011) SCC OnLine Ker 3840,
Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in para Nos.3 and 5 observed as
under:
"3. There can be no distinction on this
question when it comes to a Family
Court. Section 19(2) of the Family
Courts Act, 1984 is similar to Section
96(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Therefore, on the face of Section 19(2)
of the Family Courts Act, this appeal
does not lie. The appeal is liable to be
rejected, as one that is not provided
for by law.
5. Hence, holding that the appeal is
liable to be rejected, the CM
Application is dismissed and the
appeal is rejected, leaving open the
appellant's right, if any, to seek
remedy before the court that passed
the impugned consent decree, in
accordance with law. As regards that,
we leave open all issues because,
different precedents covering that
field stare at us, dissuading any
expression in that regard."
06. In view of the same, at this stage, I find no scope
to modify/set aside the order dated 03.05.2023 passed by
Learned Additional Judge, Family Court, Agartala, West
Tripura in the afore noted case on the ground that the same
was based on the basis of reconciliation prior to passing of
the final order.
07. Thus, the Revision Petition has got no merit and
accordingly, it stands rejected being devoid of merit.
However, the petitioner-husband, if he is so advised may
take proper recourse of law to agitate his issue before the
concerned Court. It is further ordered that the petitioner-
husband shall comply with the Court's order dated
03.05.2023 in letter and spirit to prevent his wife to suffer
from vagrancy and destitution.
The case is thus disposed of contest.
Send down the LCR along with copy of order.
JUDGE
SABYASACHI BHATTACHARJEE
BHATTACHARJEE Date: 2024.04.06 17:20:38
+05'30'
Purnita
