Sri Swapan Chakma vs The State Of Tripura And Ors
2024 Latest Caselaw 1014 Tri

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 1014 Tri
Judgement Date : 28 June, 2024

Tripura High Court

Sri Swapan Chakma vs The State Of Tripura And Ors on 28 June, 2024

Author: T. Amarnath Goud

Bench: T. Amarnath Goud

                                      Page 1 of 4




                             HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                                   AGARTALA
                             CRL.REV.P NO.44 OF 2023

     Sri Swapan Chakma
                                                         ......Petitioner(s)

                                     Versus

     The State of Tripura and ors.
                                                    .......Respondent(s)

     For the Petitioner(s)      : Ms. R. Guha, Advocate.
                                  Ms. S. Nath, Advocate.

     For the Respondent(s)      : Mr. S. Ghosh, Addl.P.P.
                                  Mr. S. Datta, Advocate.
                                  Mr. S. Banik, Advocate.

     Date of hearing and delivery of
     Judgment & Order         : 28.06.2024

     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 criminal revision petitioner has been filed

under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 by the

petitioner herein against the impugned Order passed on 17.12.2022

by the learned Court of Family Judge, Agartala, West Tripura in

connection with Case No.CRL.Misc.171 of 2021.

2. Heard Ms. R. Guha, learned counsel assisted by Ms. S.

Nath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr.S.

Ghosh, learned Addl. P.P., appearing for the State-respondent as

well as Mr.S. Datta learned counsel and Mr. S. Banik, learned

counsel appearing for the private respondent.

3. Ms. Guha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-

husband submits that the Court below while awarding the

maintenance allowance directed the petitioner-husband to pay Rs.

25,000/- per month to the respondent-wife w.e.f. 15.03.2021. The

petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the Court below to pay the

said amount w.e.f.15.03.2021, as because, the amount has become

quite a lump sum and due to the economic hardship and burden

faced by the petitioner-husband, he is not able to pay the same.

Further, the portion of the Order has been passed without the

opposite party seeking any interim prayer. The learned Court below

also failed to appreciate the fact that respondent No.2 is still staying

in the house of the petitioner.

To support her argument, learned counsel appearing for

the petitioner referred to Para-25 of the Judgment of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court reported in AIR 1975 SC 915 titled as

Ramchandra Keshab Adke(Dead) by Lrs. Vs. Govind Joti

Chavare and ors., which is produced herein:-

"where indeed, the whole aim and ob- ject of the legislature would be plainly defeated if the command to do the thing in a particular manner did not imply a prohibition to do it in any other. Maxwell's Interpretation of Statutes, 11th Edn.pp.362-363. "The rule will be attracted with full force in the present case, because non- verification of the surrender in the requisite manner would frustrate the very purpose of this provision. Intention of the legislature to pro- hibit the verification of the surrender in a man- ner other than the one prescribed is implied in these provisions. Failure to comply with these mandatory provisions, therefore had vitiated the surrender and rendered it non est for the pur- pose of S. 5 (3) (b). "

To strengthen his argument, learned counsel also referred to

another Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in AIR

1952 SC 16 titled as Commissioner of Police, Bombay Vs.

Gordhandas Bhanji.

4. On the other hand, Mr. S. Banik, learned counsel

appearing for the respondent submits that the Judgment and Order

as passed by the Court below is just and proper. To support his

argument, he referred to Para-111 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court

reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324 titled as Rajnesh Vs. Neha and

anr. The same is produced here-in-under:-

"The rationale of granting maintenance from the date of application to the date of finds its roots in the object of enacting maintenance legislations, so as to enable wife to overcome the financial crunch which occurs on separation from husband. Financial constraints of a dependent spouse hamper their capacity be effectively represented before the court. In order to prevent a dependant from being reduced to destitution, it is necessary that maintenance is awarded from the date on which the application for maintenance is filed before the court concerned."

5. Heard and perused the evidence on record.

6. Once a litigant comes to a Court with her prayer for

justice, it is the prerogative of the Court to pass an appropriate

Order for the sake of Justice. The learned Court below directed the

impugned maintenance allowance in the interest of the party

concerned and this Court in terms of the factual aspect of this case

is of the opinion that respondent No.2 is entitled to the said

maintenance allowance. Once it falls due, any maintenance or

compensation granted by the Court is to be paid from the period on

which it is due. Further, the Judgments as referred by the learned

counsel appearing for the petitioner are not relevant to the facts of

the case.

7. In the midst of the argument, learned counsel appearing

for the petitioner submitted before this Court that in the earlier

round of litigation in Criminal Petition No.26 of 2022, which was

decided by this Court between the parties herein, the wife

respondent as petitioner herein approached the Hon'ble Supreme

Court and the Hon'ble Apex Court has set aside the order of the

this Court by Order dated 04.01.2023. But on perusal of the said

order of the Hon'ble Apex Court, passed in Special Leave

Petition(Criminal) Dairy No(s). 35270/2022, preferred by

petitioner Sri Swapan Chakma, the same reveals thus:-

"Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the material placed on record, though, we are not persuaded to consider interference in this matter against the order passed by the High Court declining the prayer of the petitioner for quashing of the criminal proceedings but, in the circumstances, we deem it appropriate to observe that the observations occurring in the order impugned by the High Court shall be read as confined to its consideration of the prayer for quashing and not beyond. In other words, such observations may not be taken decisive by the Trial Court while proceeding further with the matter and deciding the same finally.