Tripura High Court
Sri Rahul Chandra Deb vs Smti Mitali Paul on 24 January, 2024
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
Crl. Rev. P. No.51 of 2023
Sri Rahul Chandra Deb
S/o Sri Ratan Chandra Deb,
Presently posted as Ambulance
Assistant, Army No.15450586
Lower Block Military Hospital
MES Dorjaline (AMC)
Borabazar, Shillong, Meghalaya
Permanent Resident of
Netajinagar, P.O & P.S - Teliamura,
Teliamura, Khowai Tripura
----Petitioner(s)
Versus
Smti Mitali Paul
W/o Sri Rahul Chandra Deb
D/o Sri Krishna Paul
Resident of Boula Passa, Cinema Hall
P.O & P.S - Kailashahar,
District - Unakoti Tripura
---- Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. B. Deb, Adv,
Ms. S. Deb(Gupta), Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. D. C. Deb, Adv.
Date of hearing &
Judgment & Order : 24.01.2024
Whether fit for
reporting : NO
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BISWAJIT PALIT
Judgment & Order(Oral)
Heard Mr. B. Deb, Learned Counsel assisted by
Ms. S. Deb(Gupta), Learned Counsel appearing for the
petitioner as well as Mr. D.C. Deb, Learned Counsel appearing
for the respondent.
2. This Criminal Revision Petition under Section 397
read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C, 1973 and Section 19 of the
Family Courts Act, 1984 is filed by the petitioner challenging the
order dated 01.06.2023 passed by Learned Judge, Family
Court, Kailashahar, Unakoti District in connection with Case No.
Crl. Misc. (125) 27 of 2021.
3. The gist of the Revision Petition filed by the
present Petitioner in brief, is that the respondent wife as
petitioner filed one case seeking maintenance against the
present petitioner husband at the rate of Rs.20,000/- per
month in view of the provision provided under Section 125 of
Cr.P.C. The contention of the respondent in her petition was
that the respondent is the legally married wife of the present
petitioner husband and their marriage was solemnized on
06.05.2019 according to Hindu Rites and Customs. After the
marriage, the respondent wife went to her matrimonial home to
start conjugal life with the petitioner husband but the petitioner
husband at the instigation of his parents, sister and brother-in-
law started subjecting the respondent wife mental and physical
torture for bringing a sum of Rs.1,80,000/- from her father but
the father of the respondent wife being a petty shopkeeper
could not meet up the demand for which the present petitioner
husband inhumanely caused torture upon her but inspite of that
the respondent wife continued to lead conjugal life with the
present petitioner husband with the hope that the husband
would correct himself. In the month of August, 2019, the
petitioner husband took her in his place of posting at Shillong
where the petitioner husband subjected the respondent wife to
severe physical torture and even tried to kill her by throttling
her. In the month of October, 2020, the respondent wife
returned back to her matrimonial home at Teliamura and
therefrom she came to her parental home at Kailashahar during
„Bhaifuta‟ alongwith the petitioner husband but the petitioner
left her therein with assurance to take her back but did not
come later on. The respondent wife on several occasions made
contact with the present petitioner-husband but the petitioner
was reluctant to take her back. The respondent wife in her
petition further stated that her husband i.e. the petitioner is an
employee under the Central Government and was drawing
salary more than Rs.60,000/-. So, she approached the Court for
granting maintenance at the rate of Rs.20,000/- per month.
4. The present petitioner as OP contested the said
proceeding before the Learned Court below by filing one written
objection wherein he stated that the respondent had love affair
with a boy of Kailashahar and for that she was reluctant to stay
at Teliamura at her matrimonial home and used to remain busy
with her mobile phone. It was further asserted that the actual
name of the respondent wife is Mitali Paul but that name was
concealed at the time of marriage and the respondent wife and
her family members pretended her as Tina Paul. It was further
asserted that the respondent wife was earning Rs.10,000/- per
month by private tuition and her father was an established
businessman at Kailashahar and as such, the respondent wife
has/had sufficient means to maintain her and was not entitled
to get any maintenance. It was also asserted by the petitioner
husband that he was ready to resume conjugal life with the
present respondent wife. Before the Learned Court below, the
process of reconciliation took place but that was failed. So,
Learned Court below thereafter proceeded to dispose of the
case in accordance with law.
5. To substantiate the case, the respondent wife as
petitioner examined herself as PW-1 but no documentary
evidence was adduced by her. On the other hand, the petitioner
husband before the Learned Court below examined himself as
OPW-1 and also adduced another witness namely Ratan
Chandra Deb as OPW-2. No documentary evidence was also
adduced by him in support of his defence and finally, Learned
Court below by the order dated 01.06.2023 disposed of the
petition with the following order:-
"i) The opposite party shall pay an amount of
Rs.15,000/- (fifteen thousand) to the
petitioner w.e.f the date of filing of the case
i.e., from 24-03-2021. The arrear from 24-03-
2021 to till date may be paid in installment @
Rs. 5000/- per month along with the regular
monthly maintenance till the arrear is
cleared.
ii) The amount of maintenance so ordered
shall be payable within 10th day of every
following English Calendar Month."
6. Challenging that order, the present petitioner
husband has preferred this Revision Petition before the High
Court. In course of hearing, Learned Counsel, Mr. B. Deb
appearing on behalf of the petitioner at the very outset has
drawn the attention of the Court that the respondent wife
was/is not entitled to get any maintenance from her husband
i.e. the present petitioner. He also drawn the attention of the
Court the provision of Section 125(1) of Cr.P.C. and submitted
that there was no neglect/refusal from the side of the petitioner
to maintain his wife. Learned Counsel further submitted that in
view of the provision of sub-section 4 of Section 125 of Cr.P.C,
the present respondent wife is/was also not entitled to get any
maintenance from the present petitioner on the ground that the
respondent wife without any sufficient reasons had left the
present petitioner for which she is not entitled to get any
maintenance from her husband. Learned Counsel further drawn
the attention of the Court referring the evidence of the
respondent wife as PW-1 and submitted that from her evidence,
it will be crystal clear that she had voluntarily left the company
of her husband and there was no refusal/neglect from the side
of her husband i.e. the present petitioner. As such in view of
the mandate of the provision of Section 125 of Cr.P.C., the
respondent wife was not entitled to get any maintenance but
the Learned Court below did not consider the evidence on
record and awarded maintenance at the rate of 15,000/- per
month against the petitioner husband. Learned Counsel also
submitted that the present petitioner husband was drawing
Rs.40,000/- and from that amount he has to maintain his old
aged parents and since the respondent wife was living
separately from the year 2020 so she is not entitled to get any
maintenance which Learned Court below did not consider and
relied upon two citations and finally, urged before the Court to
annul/set aside the order passed by Learned Judge, Family
Court, Kailashahar.
On the other hand, Learned Counsel for the
respondent wife first of all, drawn the attention of the Court
that there was clear evidence of refusal/neglect by the
petitioner husband to pay maintenance to his wife i.e. the
respondent of this case. Learned Counsel further submitted that
in a proceeding under Domestic Violence Act, the Court ordered
for restoration of Shtree Dhan by the petitioner husband to his
wife i.e. the respondent of this case. Even there is case pending
under Section 498(A) of IPC against the petitioner.
Furthermore, the present petitioner inspite of direction by the
Court never produced salary certificate before the Court and his
present salary would be now more than Rs.60,000/- and finally,
Learned Counsel for the respondent wife submitted before the
Court that the Learned Court below rightly and reasonably
delivered the order awarding maintenance at the rate of
Rs.15,000/- per month in favour of the respondent wife and
urged before this Court to uphold the order of the Learned
Court below.
7. I have heard elaborate arguments of both the
sides at length and also gone through the record of the Learned
Court below. There is no dispute on record in respect of the
marriage of the present petitioner husband with the respondent
wife on 06.05.2019 as per Hindu Marriage Rites and Customs.
8. To substantiate the claim petition, the respondent
wife has examined her in the original proceeding as PW-1. On
the other hand, the present petitioner husband adduced two
witnesses including himself. Now, let us consider what was the
evidence on record of the parties under dispute before the
Learned Court below.
9. The present respondent as petitioner before the
Learned Court below has examined as PW-1. In her
examination-in-chief in affidavit, she had asserted all the
contentions as raised by her in her claim petition but in course
of her cross-examination, she stated that no explanation was
given by her in para 7 of her examination-in-chief as to how she
saved her life. She informed the fact of causing torture upon
her to the superior authority of her husband but she did not
lodge any written complaint. She also did not report anything to
the nearby boarders of the quarters at Shillong nor she lodged
any FIR or any complaint at Shillong. She did not undergo any
treatment at Shillong nor she mentioned any single date or time
of alleged incident of torture or cruelty upon her in her
application for maintenance. She also submitted that she has
not submitted any proof in regard to the monthly salary of the
petitioner husband. She also mentioned her name as Tina
instead of Mitali in the marriage card. Nothing more relevant
found from her cross-examination.
10. The petitioner as OPW1 in his examination-in-chief
narrated the contentions as made by him in his written
objection and during cross-examination by the respondent wife,
he deposed that he got married with the respondent on
06.05.2018 although it should be 06.05.2019. He know the
name of his wife as Tina Paul and their marriage was a social
marriage and also submitted that he has not submitted any
salary certificate to the Court. He also deposed that sometimes
when his wife used to speak to her parents then on such
occasions her parents and his parents also used to speak over
phone and he did not mention any name with whom he
suspected his wife to have any affair. Further deposed that he
did not produce before the Court anything which he suspected
to be given to his wife by her brother on which some suspicious
things arose and again he deposed that since his wife had
departed him in the month of December, 2020, he did not
provide any monetary assistance to her.
11. OPW-2, Ratan Chandra Deb is the father of the
present petitioner. He in his examination-in-chief admitted the
fact of marriage and deposed that the respondent wife stayed
at her matrimonial home for two/three months and she used to
busy over her phone almost for the entire day and also deposed
that often there used to be quarrel in between his son and
daughter-in-law. Further deposed that the respondent wife is
presently staying at her parent‟s house for almost one year/one
and half year. During cross-examination he deposed that a case
was lodged against him and others by the respondent wife at
Kailashahar PS and the case was resulted in charge-sheet vide
Kailashahar Woman PS case No.21/2021. These are the sum
and substance of the evidence on record of the parties under
dispute before the Learned Court below.
12. As I have already stated that there is no dispute
on record in respect of the fact of marriage of the present
petitioner with the respondent wife in the year, 2019. It is also
on record that since the month of December, 2020 both the
parties are residing separately. Admittedly, the respondent wife
before the Learned Court below save and except herself could
not adduce any other witness nor produced any documentary
evidence regarding income of the petitioner husband. The
petitioner husband in course of his cross-examination by the
respondent wife specifically admitted that he drew salary of
Rs.40,000/- and also he himself admitted that he has not
produced any salary certificate before the Court.
13. Learned Court below in delivering the judgment
relied upon the citation of the Hon‟ble Apex Court in
Chaturbhuj vs. Sita Bai (2008) 2 SCC 316 wherein it has
been held that the object of granting maintenance is not to
punish a person for his past neglect, but to prevent vagrancy by
compelling those who can provide support to those who are
unable to support themselves and who have a moral claim to
support. The phrase "unable to maintain herself" in the instant
case would mean that means available to the deserted wife
while she was living with her husband and would not take within
itself the efforts made by the wife after desertion to survive
somehow. Section 125 Cr.P.C is a measure of social justice and
is specially enacted to protect women and children. The object
is to prevent vagrancy and destitution.
14. From the evidence on record, it is crystal clear
that initially the respondent wife did not lodge any complaint
against the present petitioner but later on she filed one case at
Kailashahar against her husband and others which has been
admitted by the father of the present petitioner during his
cross-examination before the Court which the present petitioner
has suppressed. The present petitioner husband also asserted
that the respondent wife is earning Rs.10,000/- per month by
doing private tuition but in this regard, no documentary
evidence was produced and proved by the petitioner husband.
It was also asserted that the respondent wife had some illicit
relation with a boy at Kailashahar but to substantiate that
allegation, no oral or documentary evidence was proved and
produced by the petitioner husband before the Learned Court
below. So, legally there was no scope on the part of the Court
to believe that part of the evidence. Now, here we are dealing
with a proceeding under Section 125 of Cr.P.C which was
enacted to prevent vagrancy and destitution of a distressed
lady.
15. In course of hearing, Learned Counsel for the
petitioner drawn the attention of the Court to the relevant
provision of Section 125 and Section 125(4) of Cr.P.C and for
the sake of convenience, the relevant provision is reproduced
below under:
"125. Order for maintenance of wives,
children and parents- (1) If any person
having sufficient means neglects or refuses to
maintain-"
"125(4) No wife shall be entitled to receive
an [allowance for the maintenance or the
interim maintenance and expenses of
proceeding, as the case may be,] from her
husband under this section if she is living in
adultery, or if, without any sufficient reason,
she refuses to live with her husband, or if
they are living separately by mutual consent."
Learned Counsel for the petitioner at the time of
hearing stressed upon the very sentence of the provision
"Person having sufficient means neglects or refuses" again
stressed upon "without any sufficient reason, she refuses to live
with her husband" and submitted that there was no evidence on
record that the petitioner husband refused or neglected to
provide maintenance to the respondent wife rather there was
also evidence on record that the present respondent wife had
voluntarily left her matrimonial house and refused to live with
her husband i.e. the petitioner as such she was not entitled to
get any maintenance.
16. Here in the case at hand as already stated the
respondent wife as petitioner has only adduced her evidence
before the Learned Court below. She specifically asserted that
she did not report anything in writing to the superior authority
of the petitioner husband regarding causing cruelty upon her by
her husband at Shillong or she did not lodge any complaint at
Shillong for the alleged assault but it is on record that she later
on filed one case at Kailashahar against the present petitioner
husband and other family members and it is also on record
since December 2020, both the parties are residing separately.
It is on record that the present petitioner husband did not
provide anything to the respondent wife towards her
maintenance and furthermore, the O.P. also could not produce
any oral/documentary evidence on record that the father of the
respondent wife has/had sufficient means to provide
maintenance to his daughter. There is further no evidence on
record that the present petitioner husband did take any step to
bring her back i.e. the respondent wife at her matrimonial home
nor he filed any case against the respondent wife for restitution
of conjugal rights which indicates that there might had some
reason which compelled the respondent wife to stay at her
parental house after deserting her matrimonial home. So, there
was no scope to come to any conclusion that there was no
refusal or neglect from the side of the petitioner husband to
provide any maintenance to the respondent wife. Furthermore,
no convincing argument adduced by the Learned Counsel
representing the petitioner to disbelieve the contention raised
by the respondent wife in her claim petition for maintenance.
17. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further in
course of hearing relied upon two citations. In Rajnesh Vrs.
Neha and another dated 04.11.2020 reported in (2021) 2
SCC 324, Hon‟ble Supreme Court framed some guidelines on
certain aspect pertaining to the maintenance in matrimonial
matters. In Para 65, Hon‟ble Apex Court observed as under:
"65. The party claiming maintenance either
as a spouse, or as a partner in a civil union,
live-in relationship, common law marriage,
should be required to file a concise
application for interim maintenance with
limited pleadings, along with an Affidavit of
Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities before the
court concerned, as a mandatory
requirement. On the basis of the pleadings
filed by both parties and the Affidavits of
Disclosure, the court would be in a position to
make an objective assessment of the
approximate amount to be awarded towards
maintenance at the interim stage."
In Para 72, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court further
observed as under:
"72. Keeping in mind the need for a uniform
format of Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets and
Liabilities to be filed in maintenance
proceedings, this Court considers it necessary
to frame guidelines in exercise of our powers
under Article 136 read with Article 142 of the
Constitution of India:
72.1 (a) The Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets
and Liabilities annexed at Enclosures I, II and
III of this judgment, as may be applicable,
shall be filed by the parties in all maintenance
proceedings, including pending proceedings
before the Family Court/District Court/
Magistrate's Court concerned, as the case
may be, throughout the country;
72.2 (b) The applicant making the claim for
maintenance will be required to file a concise
application accompanied with the Affidavit of
Disclosure of Assets;
72.3 (c) The respondent must submit the
reply along with the Affidavit of Disclosure
within a maximum period of four weeks. The
courts may not grant more than two
opportunities for submission of the Affidavit
of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities to the
respondent. If the respondent delays in filing
the reply with the affidavit, and seeks more
than two adjournments for this purpose, the
court may consider exercising the power to
strike off the defence of the respondent, if the
conduct is found to be wilful and
contumacious in delaying the proceedings
[Kaushalya V.Mukesh Jain,(2020) 17 SCC
822]. On the failure to file the affidavit within
the prescribed time, the Family Court may
proceed to decide the application for
maintenance on basis of the affidavit filed by
the applicant and the pleadings on record;"
Referring the same, Learned Counsel submitted
that the respondent wife did not submit any affidavit showing
disclosure of assets and liabilities as mandated by the Hon‟ble
Supreme Court.
18. In this regard, after going through the record of
the Learned Court below, it appears that the respondent-
petitioner at the time of filing application under Section 125 of
Cr.P.C. submitted affidavit of assets and liabilities for non-
agrarian deposits in Enclosure-1 before the Learned Court
below. Similarly, the present petitioner husband also submitted
affidavit of assets and liabilities as per Enclosure-1 in pursuance
of the direction of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court wherein he
specifically mentioned in the relevant column showing his
monthly income as Rs.40,490/-. So, the aforesaid citation of
the Hon‟ble Apex Court is not required to be taken into
consideration in this case since the direction of the Hon‟ble
Supreme Court has been duly complied with by the parties.
19. Learned Counsel for the petitioner also relied upon
another citation of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India in Aditi
Alias Mithi v. Jitesh Sharma dated 06.11.2023 reported in
2023 SCC OnLine SC 1451 wherein Paras 15, 16 & 17 Hon‟ble
Supreme Court observed as under:
"15. Nothing is evident from the record or
even pointed out by the learned counsel for
the appellant at the time of hearing that
affidavits were filed by both the parties in
terms of judgment of this Court in Rajnesh's
case (supra), which was directed to be
communicated to all the High Courts for
further circulation to all the Judicial Officers
for awareness and implementation. The case
in hand is not in isolation. Even after
pronouncement of the aforesaid judgment,
this Court is still coming across number of
cases decided by the courts below fixing
maintenance, either interim or final, without
their being any affidavit on record filed by the
parties. Apparently, the officers concerned
have failed to take notice of the guidelines
issued by this Court for expeditious disposal
of cases involving grant of maintenance.
Comprehensive guidelines were issued
pertaining to overlapping jurisdiction among
courts when concurrent remedies for grant of
maintenance are available under the Special
Marriage Act, 1954, Section 125 Cr.P.C., the
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence
Act, 2005, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and
Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956,
and Criteria for determining quantum of
maintenance, date from which maintenance is
to be awarded, enforcement of orders of
maintenance including fixing payment of
interim maintenance. As a result, the
litigation which should close at the trial level
is taken up to this Court and the parties are
forced to litigate.
16. As in the case in hand, the impugned
order passed by the High Court is cryptic and
is bereft of reasons. In our opinion, the same
deserves to be set aside and the matter is
liable to be remitted to the High Court for
consideration afresh. Ordered accordingly. As
the respondent remained unrepresented, the
High Court may issue notice for his
appearance on the date so fixed by it.
17. Considering the facts of the case in
hand and the other similar cases coming
across before this Court not adhering to the
guidelines given in Rajnesh's case (supra),
we deem it appropriate to direct the
Secretary General of this Court to re-circulate
the aforesaid judgment not only to all the
Judicial Officers through the High Courts
concerned but also to the National Judicial
Academy and the State Judicial Academies, to
be taken note of during the training
programmes as well. Ordered accordingly."
I have gone through the said citation. It appears
that since the respondent wife has complied with the direction
of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh (supra), so the
present citation is not helping us to take any adverse inference
against the present respondent of this case.
20. After hearing Learned Counsel of both the sides
and after going through the evidence on record before the
Learned Court below, it appears that Learned Court below after
taking into consideration all aspects has rightly delivered the
final order awarding maintenance allowance at the rate of
Rs.15,000/- per month to the respondent wife with effect from
24.03.2021 with further direction to clear the arrear
maintenance with effect from 24.03.2021 to till date by paying
installment at the rate of Rs.5000/- per month along with
regular maintenance till the arrear is clear with further direction
to pay the maintenance within tenth day of every following
English calendar month. In course of hearing, nothing is raised
by the Learned Counsel for the respondent wife regarding non-
payment of arrear maintenance by the petitioner husband. So,
this Court does not find any scope to interfere with the
judgment of the Learned Court below nor find any scope to pass
any observation in respect of the arrear maintenance allowance
as ordered by the Learned Court below.
21. In the result, the Revision Petition filed by the
petitioner is hereby dismissed on contest with costs. The order
dated 01.06.2023 passed by Learned Court below in Crl.
Misc.(125) 27 of 2021 is hereby upheld and accordingly
affirmed. The present petitioner shall comply with the order of
the Learned Court below without any further delay. With these
observations, this Revision Petition is disposed of.
22. Send down the LCR along with copy of judgment
and order.
JUDGE
MOUMITA Digitally signed by
MOUMITA DATTA
DATTA Date: 2024.01.25
14:47:47 -08'00'
Deepshikha
