Tripura High Court
Chandan Chakraborty vs Miss Hridhy Chakraborty And Others on 10 July, 2024
Author: T. Amarnath Goud
Bench: T. Amarnath Goud
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
Crl. Rev.P.26 of 2024
Chandan Chakraborty
................... Petitioner(s)
Versus
Miss Hridhy Chakraborty and others
........... Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rishiraj Nath, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Raju Datta, PP.
Mr. Alik Das, Advocate.
Ms. M. Roy, Advocate.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T. AMARNATH GOUD
ORDER
10.07.2024
Heard Mr. Rishiraj Nath, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Also heard Mr. A. Das, learned counsel and Ms. M. Roy, learned counsel
for the private respondents. Mr. R. Datta, learned PP is present on behalf
of the State respondent.
[2] This petitioner is filed under Section 397 of Cr.PC read with
Section 401 of Cr.PC against an order dated 02.02.2024 vide
Cr.Misc.(Interim) 17 of 2023 arising out of Cr. Misc.55 of 2023 passed by
the learned Judge, Family Court Udaipur, Gomati, Tripura seeking
following reliefs:
"i. Pass an order hereby calling for the relevant records pertaining to the
case.
ii. Pass an order hereby setting aside the order dated 02.02.2024
passed by the Ld. Judge, Family Court, Udaipur, Gomati vide Cr. Misc.
17 of 2023.
iii. Any other order that Your Honour deems fit and proper................"
[3] The brief facts of the case as contended in the instant
petition are that the petitioner and the respondent wife were married on
13.05.2007 and subsequently, two issues were born out of the said wed
lock. Due to irrevocable differences, a mutual divorce was ultimately
preferred by both the parties resulting in a decree of divorce having been
passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Udaipur, Gomati in Title Suit
(Divorce) 39 of 2022 on 25th April, 2023 wherein both the parties agreed
to amicably part their ways with settlement. It was settled there that the
respondent-wife would not claim any maintenance from the husband-
petitioner for herself and the issues owing to the fact that the respondent
herself is competent and capable enough to take care for her own self
and the minor daughters. But, subsequently, claim for maintenance was
preferred by the representing respondent and an order for interim
maintenance was passed on 02.02.2024 in Cr. Misc. (Int.) 17 of 2024 by
the learned Judge, Family Court, Udaipur, Gomati. Aggrieved by the said
order, this Criminal Revision Petition has been preferred.
[4] Mr. R. Nath, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the impugned order passed by the learned Court below is erroneous,
illegal and the same was passed ignoring certain factual issues. He
submits that while passing the order, learned Court below failed to
observe that the petitioner and the representing guardian i.e. the former
wife of the petitioner had obtained a decree of divorce under mutual
consent vide judgment dated 25.04.2023 by the learned Judge, Family
Court, Udaipur, Gomati Tripura. Learned counsel, therefore, urges this
court to set aside the impugned order dated 02.02.2024 passed by the
Court below.
[5] On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the
private respondents opposes the submission made by the learned counsel
for the petitioner and submit that there is no infirmity in the order passed
by the learned Court below. Therefore, they urge this Court to dismiss
the instant petition.
[6] For appreciation of facts, the relevant portion of the order
dated 25.04.2023 in Title Suit (Divorce) 39 of 2022 of the Court below is
quoted hereunder:
"......3. Both the petitioners submitted their respective examination-in-
chief in affidavits submitting that the wife-petitioner is capable of
maintaining herself and her two daughters and at her own wish the
wife-petitioner relinquishes right of maintenance for herself and her two
daughters from the husband-petitioner. The wife-petitioner received
'Stridhan' from the husband-petitioner. The two daughters of the
petitioners will stay under the care and supervision of the wife-
petitioner and for that the husband-petitioner will not raise objection in
any manner in future. Further, the husband-petitioner will visit the
house of the wife-petitioner once in a month to see his daughters. The
wife-petitioner shall not claim any maintenance from the husband-
petitioner. Accordingly, both the petitioners prayed to pass decree of
divorce on mutual consent......"
[7] On perusal of record and upon hearing the submission of
the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that by
the impuguned proceeding dated 02.02.2024, no proper reasoning has
been made out by the Court below to justify the mutual consent of
divorce. Further, no observation has been made on the fact that, it is
the responsibility of both the parents to look after the children. Since all
the pleadings and evidence are not mentioned in the impugned
proceeding dated 02.02.2024, this Court is of the opinion that the
matter be remanded back to the Court below for adjudicating the same
afresh in accordance with law and to pass a reasoned order. Thus, the
order impugned passed by the Court below is set aside.
With the above observation and direction, this instant
petition filed by the petitioner is allowed to the extent as indicated above
and the matter is remanded back for fresh adjudication.
Thus, the instant petition is disposed of. As a sequel,
miscellaneous application(s) pending if any, shall also stand closed.
JUDGE
Sabyasachi G.
SABYASACHI GHOSH GHOSH
Date: 2024.07.12 14:51:52 +05'30'
