Tripura High Court
Smt. Priyanka Chowdhury vs Sri Subham Banik on 27 June, 2024
Author: Arindam Lodh
Bench: Arindam Lodh
Page 1 of 2
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
FA 7 of 2023
Smt. Priyanka Chowdhury
W/O- Sri Subham Banik, aged about 27 years, D/O. Sri Narayan
Chowdhury, resident of Adarsha Palli, Gandhi School, Road, P.S.- East
Agartala, P.O- College Tilla Dist.- West Tripura, Pin- 799004
---Appellant(s)
Versus
Sri Subham Banik
S/O. Sri Sudharshan Banik, Resident of Ramthakur Road, Town Pratapgarh,
P.S.- East Agartala, P.O- College Tilla, Dist.- West Tripura, Pin-799004,
Tripura.
---Respondent(s)
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. S. Lodh, Advocate
Mr. Kishalay Roy, Advocate
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. PK Biswas, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Rishiraj Nath, Advocate
Mr. Pujan Biswas, Advocate
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM LODH
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D. PURKAYASTHA
Order
27.06.2024
Heard Mr. S. Lodh, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-wife as
well as Mr. PK Biswas, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Rishiraj Nath,
learned counsel and Mr. Pujan Biswas, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent-husband.
This is a first appeal filed under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act,
1984, challenging the judgment & order dated 14.07.2023 passed by the
learned Judge, Family Court, West Tripura, Agartala, Court No.1, in Civil
Misc.81 of 2022 arising out of T.S.(Div) 211 of 2022, whereby learned Judge,
Family Court rejected the prayer of the appellant for granting maintenance
pendente lite and litigation expenses.
Mr. Lodh, learned counsel for the appellant-wife has submitted that the
appellant has no source of permanent income at present, though she is earning
some money from her cloth business. He further has submitted that if the
maintenance is not granted to her, then, she would be incapable to survive.
On the other hand Mr. Biswas, learned senior counsel for the
respondent-husband has submitted that the appellant-wife has enough source
of income and she is an income tax assessee. As such, she is not entitled to get
maintenance. Learned senior counsel further has submitted that the
respondent-husband has no income and he is totally dependent on the income
of his father.
However, Mr. Lodh, learned counsel has disputed the IT returns and the
Bank statements of the appellant-wife.
We have considered the submissions of learned counsel appearing for
the parties.
After perusal of the records, we find that the husband-Subham Banik
had gone for several pleasure trips to Singapore, Indonesia, Europe with the
respondent-wife. Our prima facie opinion is that a husband without income
cannot take his wife to pleasure trips to such places as stated above. Further
Mr. Biswas, learned senior counsel for the respondent-husband has submitted
that the expenditure of those trips was borne by his father.
We are not passing any final opinion at this stage. However, considering
the various matters of disputes, as an interim measure, we direct the
respondent-husband to pay a maintenance allowance of Rs.5,000/- per month
in favour of appellant-wife. The learned Judge, Family Court is directed to
consider all the evidence on record while granting maintenance to the
appellant-wife during final disposal of the petition for maintenance.
This is just an interim order. It is made clear that the learned Judge,
Family Court will not be influenced by any of the observations made in this
order while passing the final order.
The respondent-husband is also directed to pay a cost of Rs.10,000/- as
litigation expenses.
With the aforesaid observations and directions, the instant appeal stands
disposed of.
JUDGE JUDGE
Rohit
