Tripura High Court
Shri Nitai Bhowmik vs Smt. Tipati Paul on 4 July, 2024
Author: T. Amarnath Goud
Bench: T. Amarnath Goud
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
Crl. Rev.P.3 of 2024
Shri Nitai Bhowmik
............Petitioner(s)
Versus
Smt. Tipati Paul
...........Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s) : Ms. A. Debbarma, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Biplab Debnath, Advocate.
Date of hearing & delivery
of judgment and order : 04.07.224
Whether fit for reporting : Yes/No.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T. AMARNATH GOUD
JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL)
Heard Ms. A. Debbarma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard
Mr. Biplab Debnath, learned counsel for the respondent.
[2] This criminal revision petition is filed under Section 19(4) of the Family
Courts Act, 1984 read with Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C against the judgment dated
25.07.2023 passed by learned Judge, Family Court, Agartala, West Tripura in Crl.
Misc. 489 of 2021 under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. by granting maintenance @
Rs.5,000/- per month to the wife (respondent herein) w.e.f. 10.08.2021 i.e. from the
date of application for maintenance.
[3] The impugned order dated 25.07.2023 passed by the learned Court
below in case No. Crl.Misc.489 of 2021 reads as under:
"O R D E R
23. In the result, Rs. 5,000/- (five thousand) per month is fixed as
monthly maintenance for the petitioner w.e.f, 10-08-2021 (date of filing) and
the OP is directed to deposit the same to the Savings Bank Account of the
petitioner, Smt Tipati Paul of by sending the same by Money Order payable
within 10th day of every English Calendar month. Remittance charges, if any,
shall be borne by the OP. OP is further directed to clear up the arrear
maintenance from 10-08-2021. OP has to pay the arrear maintenance of
Rs.1,20,000/- (One lakh twenty thousand) only [@ Rs.5,000/- X 24 months =
Rs.1,20,000/- from Aug, 2021 to July, 2023] within 6(six) months from today.
As per Sec.125(2) Cr.P.C., and also as per decision of our Hon'ble
Supreme Court in case between Rajnesh Vs. Neha, maintenance is to be
paid by husband-OP from the date of institution of the case. As the
petitioner is not awarded interim maintenance, hence I have awarded the
monthly maintenance in the instant case effecting from the date of filing of the
case.
24. The case is disposed of on contest.
25. Supply copy of the judgment free of cost to both the parties........."
[4] Aggrieved by the aforesaid order impugned passed by the learned Court
below, the petitioner has preferred this petition seeking following reliefs:
"i) Admit the instant petition filed U/S 19(4) of the Family Court's Act, read with
Section 397/401 of CrPC against the Judgment, dated, 25.07.2023, passed by
the Family Court, Agartala, West Tripura, in Crl. Misc 489/2021.
ii) Issue notice upon the Respondent
iii) Hear the both sides.
iv) Allow the instant Criminal Revision Petition by setting aside/quashing the
Judgment, dated, 25.07.2023, passed by the Family Court, Agartala, West
Tripura, in Crl. Misc 489/2021.
v) Call for records........"
[5] Ms. A. Debbarma, learned counsel for the petitioner husband contends
that the order passed by the learned Court below is not sustainable in the eye of law
and the findings of the learned Court below is perverse. She further submits that the
learned Court below failed to appreciate that without any reasonable cause, the
respondent has withdrawn herself from the matrimonial home and deserted the
petitioner husband. According to the learned counsel, learned Court below did not
apply its judicious mind in determining the maintenance @Rs.5000/- per month to
the wife because the monthly income of the petitioner is very meager. She,
therefore, urges this Court to set aside the impugned judgment passed by the
learned Court below.
[6] On the other hand, Mr. B. Debnath learned counsel for the respondent
wife opposes the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner
contending that there is no infirmity in the aforesaid order passed by the learned
Court below. He, therefore, submits that the instant criminal revision petition filed by
the petitioner is liable to be dismissed.
[7] Heard the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.
Perused the record.
[8] This Court examined both parties and also the Bank Manager of the
bank in which, the petitioner husband is working. The Bank Manager informed this
Court that petitioner is working as contract labor for Rs.2,000/- per week with the
bank and it is engaging his services for two weeks in a month and paying Rs.4,000/-
per month. Further, there is no evidence placed on record by any person to show
that the petitioner is earning more than the above.
[9] Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is
of the view that ends of justice would be met if the monthly maintenance assessed
by the Court below to the respondent wife be reduced to Rs.2,000/- per month
instead of Rs.5,000/- per month and accordingly, the same is ordered. Petitioner is
directed to pay all the arrears, if any, to the respondent wife within a period of
06(six) months with six equal installments from the date of filing of the application of
maintenance @ Rs.2,000/- per month. All the payments regarding monthly
maintenance/arrears shall be paid within 10th day of every English calendar month.
Thus, this criminal revision petition is allowed to the extent as indicated
above and accordingly, the same is disposed of. Personal appearance of the parties
to this Court is hereby dispensed with.
As a sequel, miscellaneous application(s), pending if any, shall also
stand closed.
JUDGE
Sabyasachi. G.
SABYASACHI Digitally signed by SABYASACHI
GHOSH
GHOSH Date: 2024.07.06 16:46:02 +05'30'
