Tripura High Court
Sri Bonoraj Choudhury vs Smti Mani Singh Choudhury And Anr on 3 July, 2024
Author: T. Amarnath Goud
Bench: T. Amarnath Goud
Page 1 of 3
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
CRL.REV.P NO.35 OF 2024
Sri Bonoraj Choudhury ......Petitioner(s)
Versus
Smti Mani Singh Choudhury and anr.
.......Respondent(s)
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. P. Majumder, Advocate.
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. N. Chaudhuri, Advocate.
Mr. S. Ghosh, Addl. P.P.
Date of hearing and delivery of
Judgment & Order : 03.07.2024.
Whether fit for reporting : YES/NO.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T. AMARNATH GOUD
J U D G M E N T & O R D E R(ORAL)
This present revision petition has been filed under
Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 read with Section
397/401 of Cr.P.C. against the impugned Order dated
08.12.2023 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Agartala,
West Tripura in Crl.Misc.(Int.) No.486 of 2022 arising out of
Criminal Misc.485 of 2022 directing the petitioner to pay
Rs.10,000/-(Ten thousand) per month to the respondent w.e.f.
22.07.2022.
2. Heard Mr.P. Majumder, learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner as well as Mr.N. Chaudhuri, learned counsel for
respondent No.1 and Mr. S. Ghosh, learned Addl. P.P., appearing
for State-respondent No.2.
3. Mr. P. Majumder, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner submits that his client is an employee of a private firm
and his monthly salary is Rs.16,666/-. Learned Court below
directed the petitioner-husband to pay interim maintenance of
Rs.10,000/- per month to the respondent-wife without any
evidence.
To support his argument, learned counsel relied upon
para-80 of the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported
in (2021) 2SCC 324 titled s Rajnesh Vs. Neha and anr. The same
is produced here-in-under:-
"80. On the other hand, the financial capacity of the husband, his actual
income, reasonable expenses for his own maintenance, and dependent family
members whom he is obliged to maintain under the law, liabilities if any, would
be required to be taken into consideration, to arrive at the appropriate quantum
of maintenance to be paid. The court must have due regard to the standard of
living of the husband, as well as the spiralling inflation rates and high costs of
living. The plea of the husband that he does not possess any source of income
ipso facto does not absolve him of his moral duty to maintain his wife if he is
able-bodied and has educational qualifications."
Stating thus learned counsel urged this Court to set
aside the impugned order dated 08.12.2023.
4. On the other hand, Mr. N. Chaudhuri, learned counsel
appearing for the respondent-wife submitted before this Court a
document wherein it is stated that the petitioner-husband is a
Director of a Private Firm namely Dream Box Marketing Assam
Private Limited and argued before this Court that the petitioner is
a rich person having lot of properties.
5. Heard both sides and perused the evidence on record.
6. After hearing the argument of both the parties and
perusing the evidence on record as well as the document
submitted by learned counsel appearing for the respondent-wife,
this Court is of the opinion that the impugned order dated
08.12.2023 passed by the learned Court below is just and proper
is needs no further interference or modification. Accordingly, this
present revision petition stands dismissed and the impugned
Order of the Court below is upheld.
7. 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: 2024.07.06
SINGHA 13:56:21 +05'30'
