Tripura High Court
Shri Chuni Lal Dhar vs Smt. Barnali Dhar And Others on 21 June, 2024
Author: T. Amarnath Goud
Bench: T. Amarnath Goud
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
Crl.Rev.P.31 of 2024
Shri Chuni Lal Dhar
............Petitioner(s)
Versus
Smt. Barnali Dhar and others
...........Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Biplab Debnath, Advocate.
Ms. Puja Ghosh, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Raju Datta, PP.
Mr. S. Lodh, Advocate.
Ms. R. Chakraborty, Advocate.
Date of hearing & delivery
of judgment and order : 21.06.224
Whether fit for reporting : Yes/No.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T. AMARNATH GOUD
JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL)
Heard Mr. Biplab Debnath, learned counsel and Ms. Puja Ghosh, learned
counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. Lodh, learned counsel for respondent
No.1. and Ms. R. Chakraborty, learned counsel for respondent No.2. Mr. Raju Datta,
learned PP is present for representing the State respondent.
[2] This criminal revision petition is filed under Section 19(4) of the Family
Courts Act, 1984 read with Section 397 Cr.P.C. and 401 of the Cr.P.C against the
impugned judgment and order dated 31.08.2023 passed in case No. Criminal
Misc.101 of 2019 by the learned Judge, Family Court, Dharmanagar, North Tripura.
[3] The impugned order dated 31.08.2023 passed by the learned Court
below in case No. Criminal Misc.101 of 2019 reads as under:
"ORDER
Therefore, the prayer of the petitioner No.1 Smt. Barnali Dhar and
Petitioner No.2 Sri Ayush Dhar claiming for enhanced maintenance for
themselves u/s. 127(1) of Cr.P.C, against OP Sri Chunilal Sharma is hereby
allowed.
The OP is directed to pay monthly maintenance at an enhanced rate of
Rs.15,000/- (Fifteen thousand) for petitioner No.1 and Rs.10,000/- (Ten
Thousand) for petitioner No2 [(i.e. total Rs.25,000/- (Twenty five thousand)]
w.e.f, 05-11-2019 and send the same to petitioner No.1 in her Savings Bank
Account or Money Order and the Money Order commission shall be borne by the
OP.
The amount shall be sent within 10th day of every English Calendar
month.
The arrears which accrued upon this order shall be paid in installment
@Rs.5,000/- per month in addition to the enhanced maintenance of Rs.25,000/-
till realization of the arrears.
In view of the above, the instant case is hereby disposed of uncontested
ex-parte against the OP.
Supply copy of this order to both the parties free of cost for information
and compliance.
Make necessary entries in the TR and CIS........"
[4] Aggrieved by the aforesaid order impugned passed by the learned Court
below, the petitioner has preferred this petition seeking following reliefs:
"i) Issue Rule calling upon the respondents to show cause as to why the
impugned Judgment and Final Order dated 31.08.2023, passed in Criminal Misc.
101 of 2019, by the learned Judge, Family Court, Dharmanagar, North Tripura,
(Annexure-5 supra), shall not be quashed /set aside;
ii) Call for the records appertaining to this petition;
iii) In the interim pass an order staying/suspending the operation/execution of
the impugned Judgment and Final Order dated 31.08.2023, passed in Criminal
Misc. 101 of 2019, by the learned Judge, Family Court, Dharmanagar, North
Tripura, (Annexure-5 supra) till disposal of the instant Criminal Revision petition;
AND
iv) After hearing the parties be pleased to remand back the matter i.e. Criminal
Misc. 101 of 2019 before the learned Judge, Family Court, Dharmanagar, North
Tripura for fresh appreciation.............."
[5] Mr. B. Debnath, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order
passed by the Court below is not sustainable in the eye of law and the findings of the
learned lower Court are perverse, illegal, erroneous and against the evidence on
record. It is submitted by the learned counsel that respondent-2, namely, Ayush
Dhar who is the son of the petitioner has become major and residing with his father
since 2019. It is contended by the learned counsel of the petitioner that as the son
has become major and residing with his father, he need no maintenance from his
father. Learned counsel, therefore, urges this Court to set aside the impugned order
passed by the Court below by which maintenance of Rs.15,000/- per month is
awarded to the respondent wife.
[6] On the other hand, Mr. Sankar Lodh, learned counsel for respondent
No.1(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] Since, there is no dispute regarding the fact that the son of the
petitioner (respondent No.2) has attained majority, as such, this Court is examining
only the fact that whether the respondent wife is entitled to get Rs.15,000/- per
month by the petitioner as fixed by the learned Court below.
[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.12,000/- per month
instead of Rs.15,000/- per month. 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
and the same 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.
As a sequel, miscellaneous application(s), pending if any, shall also
stand closed.
JUDGE
Sabyasachi. G.
SABYASACHI Digitally signed by
SABYASACHI GHOSH
GHOSH Date: 2024.06.24 18:20:40
+05'30'
