Tripura High Court
Sri Navadyuti Paul @ Pal vs Smt. Sampa Banik on 22 May, 2024
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
Crl.Rev.P.No.54 of 2023
Sri Navadyuti Paul @ Pal
S/O Sri Narayan Ch. Paul
Resident of Dhaleswar, East of R.K. Mission
P.O-Dhaleswar, P.S.-East Agartala,
District-West Tripura.
....Petitioner(s)
Versus
Smt. Sampa Banik
W/O Sri Navadyuti Paul
D/O Lt. Dhirendra Ch. Banik
Resident of: H/O Sri Debabrata Bhowmik
Dhaleswar, Opposite to R.K.V.M,
P.O.-Dhaleswar, P.S.- East Agartala,
District- West Tripura
....Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. S. Das, Adv,
For Respondent(s) : Mr. S. Kar Bhowmik, Sr. Adv,
Mr. E. L. Darlong, Adv.
Date of Hearing : 16.05.2024
Date of delivery of
Judgment and Order : 22.05.2024
Whether fit for
Reporting : NO
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BISWAJIT PALIT
Judgment & Order
This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under
Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure 1973, and with Section 19(4) of the Family Courts
Act, 1984 challenging the judgment and order dated
17.06.2023 in connection with case No.Crl.Misc.342 of 2018
delivered by the Learned Addl. Family Judge, West Tripura,
Agartala whereby the Learned Family Judge allowed the
application for maintenance filed by the petitioner.
02. Heard Learned Counsel Mr. S. Das for the
petitioner-husband and also heard Learned Senior Counsel,
Mr. S. Kar Bhowmik assisted by Learned Counsel, Mr. E. L.
Darlong for the wife-respondent. Before proceeding with the
merit of the case, let us revisit the subject matter of
grievances amongst the parties.
03. The respondent-wife filed one application under
Section 125 of Cr.P.C. claiming maintenance against her
husband, Sri. Navadyuti Paul for granting maintenance
allowance at the rate of Rs.30,000/- per month. It was the
case of the respondent-wife that her marriage was
solemnized with the petitioner-husband on 23.12.2016 under
Special Marriage Act 1954 and a marriage certificate vide
Reg. Sl. No.137 book No.19 and Sl. No.378 was issued.
Thereafter, on 01.02.2017 at Udaipur Tripureswari Temple,
their formal marriage was held according to Hindu Marriage
Rites and Customs. In the marriage, wooden furniture, steel
almirah, LCD T.V., along with other golden jewellery were
given by the guardian of the respondent-wife. The
respondent-wife was a divorcee, in the year 2013, she got
divorce from her previous husband and that fact was known
to the knowledge of the petitioner-husband and to his
parents and sister. The petitioner-husband got her married
after knowing everything. After divorce in the year 2013, the
respondent-wife completed M.A. Part-I in English and started
private tuition to earn her livelihood, but due to scarcity of
space in the rented parental house, she took a room on rent
in the house of husband-petitioner for tuition and they got
intimated to each other. Seeing the respondent-wife, the
petitioner-husband and his family members had initiated
proposal for marriage and later on, she was agreed and the
marriage was held.
It was further submitted that mental torture was
started upon the respondent-wife after firajatra within a
week by the petitioner-husband and his family members
regarding dowry. Not only that, the petitioner husband and
his family members in collusion with each other started
demanding further sum of Rs.10,000,00/- from her parental
house and started causing physical and mental torture upon
her as she expressed inablility of her brother to fulfill the
demand. On several occasions, the O.P. wife was subjected
to physical and mental torture by the petitioner. She was
kept under starvation and her movements were restricted.
She was kept locked, even she was not allowed to pursue
her private tuition. Sometimes, she was kept locked in a
room by her mother-in-law namely Smt. Purabi Pal and they
used to rebuke her in filthy languages. Even, one small room
at the 2nd floor of her in-law's house was allocated to the
respondent-wife where she could sleep and since
10.02.2017, just after 10 days of their social marriage, the
petitioner-husband stopped maintaining the respondent-wife
and she used to cook her own food with a gas oven brought
from her parental house. Not only that, the petitioner-
husband also stopped sharing bed with the respondent-wife.
On 14.02.2017, the respondent-wife was assaulted by the
petitioner-husband, his father and elder sister regarding
family affairs.
04. It was further submitted that the petitioner-
husband under intoxication used to cause physical torture
upon the respondent-wife and after digesting all the
problems, the respondent-wife continued to stay at her
matrimonial home. On 07.10.2017, the respondent-wife
woke up in the morning and was standing beside a window in
the common space of the 2nd floor of the house for some
morning fresh air wherein her father-in-law objected and
asked her to leave and got to her room. As the respondent-
wife was standing, her father-in-law called her husband and
other family members and all of them holding her hair,
attacked the respondent-wife by fist and blows and
subsequently, tried to kill the respondent-wife for which she
sustained bleeding injuries and somehow she could save her
and went inside her room and from where, she was rescued
by police. Thereafter, she lodged one complaint and on the
basis of which, East Agartala Women P.S. case No.75/17
under Section 498-A, 326, 307, 34 of IPC was registered and
the case was ended in charge-sheet and at present that case
is pending in the Court of Learned J.M. 1st Class, West
Tripura, Agartala in Court No.1. On 07.10.2017, the
respondent-wife was admitted to G.B.P Hospital, Agartala
and was released on 09.10.2017. Since then, she is staying
at the residence of her brother. The matter was further dealt
with by Women Commission in a proceeding and the
members of the Women Commission visited the parental
house of the respondent-wife and recorded her statement.
05. It was further case of the petitioner that she was
a student of M.A. in English and with all her belongings were
at her matrimonial home, so, she prayed for police protection
to enter her in-law's house to collect her daily uses articles.
But the petitioner-husband denied to hand over the same
and told her to get a protection order from the Court and
thereafter, she filed a domestic violence case to the Court,
which is now pending for disposal before the Learned Court
of J.M. 1st Class, Court No.1,West Tripura, Agartala. She
further submitted a petition under Section 23 of the
Domestic Violence Act for interim order and she got
protection order. After that she went to her in-laws house on
24.06.2018 but she was denied entry and accordingly,
complaint was lodged to East Agartala Women's P.S. and to
CDPO on 24.06.2018 and on 25.06.2018 respectively. The
CDPO vide his enquiry report dated 09.07.2018 informed the
matter to the Trial Court. It was further submitted that she
was staying in the residence of her brother and was
incapable to earn any money. The petitioner-husband also
did not provide any maintenance to her for her livelihood, so
she filed the case. In the petition, she further stated that her
husband is a Medical Representative and is working at Dr.
Reddy's Laboratory Ltd, a renowned medicine company and
he was working under 'stamlo division' of the said company
and was posted at Agartala and his gross salary was above
Rs.90,000/- and he has got no other obligation as his
parents were also financially sound. But the petitioner-
husband refused to provide maintenance to the respondent-
wife and as such she filed the petition claiming maintenance
at the rate of Rs.30,000/- per month. In obedience to the
notice issued, the petitioner-husband as O.P. appeared, the
conciliation process was initiated but that was failed.
06. The petitioner-husband contested the case by
filing written objection wherein, he denied all the assertions
but admitted the fact of marriage, rather he took the plea
that after the marriage, his wife started creating pressure
upon him for separation from their joint mess but he was not
ready to do the same. On 07.10.2017, in the morning, the
petitioner-wife i.e. the respondent herein started to scold the
parents of the petitioner-husband saying that when they will
die, so that she can live peacefully alone in the whole house
along with her husband. Hearing this, the mother of the
petitioner-husband asked the respondent-wife as to why she
was uttering all these nonsense for which the respondent-
wife started assaulting both the old aged parents of the
petitioner-husband and pushed them forcefully and due to
that both of them sustained injuries. On hearing hue cry, the
petitioner-husband and his sister woke up from the sleep and
seeing their parents in miserable condition, they raised voice
and at that time the respondent-wife unnecessarily started
raising hue and cry to gather people of their locality. It was
further submitted that just to give a lesson, the respondent-
wife filed cases one after another against them and also took
the plea that the respondent-wife was an earning lady and
her monthly income is Rs.30,000/- per month rather, the
petitioner-husband was getting monthly salary of
Rs.20,000/- including his expenses but his actual salary was
Rs.12,000/-, being a Medical Representative and he used to
incur permanent recurring expenditure of about Rs.10,000/-
per month. It was further submitted by the petitioner-
husband that the respondent-wife, being an earning lady and
she of her own having withdrawn herself from the society of
her husband, as such she was not entitled to get any
maintenance. So, by the WS, the petitioner-husband prayed
for dismissal of the proceeding with costs.
07. Upon the pleadings of the parties, Learned Family
Court below determined the following points for decision of
this case:
i) Whether petitioner is the legally married
wife of OP Sri Nabadyuti Paul?
ii) Whether OP has neglected to give
maintenance to the petitioner since
07.10.2017?
iii) Whether the petitioner has just ground
to claim maintenance allowance from OP?
iv) Whether the petitioner is unable to
maintain herself and OP has sufficient
means of income?
v) Whether the petitioner is entitled to get
monthly maintenance allowance of
Rs.30,000/- per month for herself from OP?
08. To substantiate the points, both the parties have
adduced oral/documentary evidence on record:
APPENDIX
(A) Petitioner's Exibit:-
Exbt.-1 - Certificate of Marriage vide Sl.
No.378 dtd. 23.12.2016 under Special
Marriage Act.
Exbt.-2 - The copy of ejahar, FIR along
with the charge-sheet in connection with
East Agartala Women PS case no.
2017/WEA/075 dt.07.10.2017.
Exbt.-3 - Copies of the medical prescription
of treatment of IGM hospital and discharge
certificate of GBP Hospital.
Exbt.-4 - Certified copy of order sheet dtd.
26.03.2018 in Misc. 114/18.
Exbt.-5 - Inquiry report dtd. 09.07.2018 of
the Protection Officer (CDPO).
(B) Opposite Party's Exhibit:-
Exbt.-A/1 :- Pay Slip of OP for the month of
April, 2022.
(C) Petitioner's Witness:-
PW1- Smt. Sampa Banik;
PW2- Sri Bikram Banik;
(D) Opposite Party's Witness:-
OPW-1:- Sri Navadyuti Paul;
(E) Court's Witness: NIL.
(F) Court's Exhibits: NIL.
(G) Material Exhibits: NIL.
09. Finally, after hearing argument of both the sides
and on perusal of the documentary evidence on record,
Learned Additional Family Judge, West Tripura, Agartala
allowed the claim-petition of the petitioner-wife.
10. For the sake of convenience, I would like to
reproduce herein below the operative portion of the order
which is as follows:
"In the result, it is hereby held that the
petition dated 03.08.2018 filed by the
claimant-petitioner is allowed as per
sec.125(1) of Cr.P.C. with effect from the
date of petition. The wife-petitioner Smt.
Sampa Banik is awarded maintenance
allowance @ Rs. 15,000/- (rupees fifteen
thousand) only per month w.e.f the month
of August, 2018 onward.
The interim maintenance @ Rs.6,000/- was
awarded vide order dtd 06.10.2018 in Misc
(Int.) 343 of 2018 to the wife petitioner. So
the total sum of interim maintenance paid
by OP from the month of October, 2018 till
the month of May, 2023 shall be deducted
from the total arrear of maintenance
accumulated during the period of August,
2018 to May, 2023. Thus the total arrear of
maintenance will be Rs. 5,34,000/-
(Rupees five lakh thirty four thousand)
[i.e., Rs.8,70,000/- (@ Rs.15,000/- X 58
months) less Rs.3,36,000/- @ Rs.6,000/- X
56 months being the interim maintenance
paid by OP.]
O.P. Sri Navadyuti Paul is hereby directed
to pay the arrear maintenance of
Rs.5,34,000/- (Rupees five lakh thirty four
thousand) only either wholly or partly by
way of 50 nos equated monthly
installments @ Rs.10,680/-(rupees ten
thousand six hundred eighty) only per
month in favour of the wife-petitioner Smt.
Sampa Banik with effect from the month of
June, 2023 and onward by depositing the
same in her bank account within first week
of every following month of English
calendar until realization.
O.P. Sri Navadyuti Paul is also directed to
pay the monthly maintenance allowance of
Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand)
only per month to the wife-petitioner, with
effect from the month of June, 2023 and
onward by depositing the same in the bank
account of the petitioner within first week
of every following English calendar month.
OP shall continue to pay this sum of
maintenance per month even after
payment/recovery of the aforenoted
arrear.
Supply a copy of this judgment to both
parties at free of cost.
Thus, the case stands allowed & disposed
of on contest.
Make entry into the Trial Registrar and
CIS."
11. In course of hearing of argument, Learned
Counsel for the revision-petitioner submitted that before the
Learned Trial Court the wife-respondent could not produce
any evidence regarding actual income of the petitioner-
husband, rather, the petitioner-husband before the Trial
Court submitted that he was earning Rs.14,512/- and relied
upon Exhibit-1, but the Learned Court below did not consider
the same, rather without any basis imposed the payment of
maintenance allowance upon the petitioner-husband at the
rate of Rs.15,000/- per month in absence of cogent evidence
on record, for which the interference of the Court is required.
12. On the other hand, Learned Senior Counsel, Mr.
S. Kar Bhowmik assisted by Learned Counsel E. L. Darlong,
appearing on behalf of the wife-respondent submitted that
the petitioner-husband has suppressed his actual income
before the Learned Court, for which Learned Senior Counsel,
at the time of argument urged before the Court to call for the
bank statement of the petitioner-husband, so as to assess
his monthly income and further submitted that in the written
objection, filed by the husband in para No.15, it was stated
that his monthly salary was Rs.20,000/- and at the time of
evidence, relied upon Exhibit-1, from which it appears that
his income was 14,000/- per month approximately. So, the
petitioner-husband gave contradictory evidence for which the
Learned Court below did not consider the same and
ultimately awarded maintenance at the rate of Rs.15,000/-
per month from the month of August 2018 onwards and
urged for dismissal of the Revision Petition, upholding the
final order passed by the Learned Additional Judge, Family
Court, Agartala.
13. I have heard detailed arguments of both the sides
and gone though the record of the Learned Court below
including the evidence on record of the parties. There is no
dispute on record in respect of the fact of marriage of the
respondent-wife with the petitioner-husband on 23.12.2016,
which was later on socially performed at Udaipur,
Tripureswari Temple on 01.02.2017 in presence of the near
relatives of both the sides. It is also on record that after the
marriage, some mal-adjustment cropped up amongst the
parties for which the respondent-wife filed a criminal case
and also a case under Domestic Violence Act and both the
cases were pending before the respective Courts at present.
14. I have also perused the evidence on record. In
course of hearing, Learned Senior Counsel for the
respondent-wife submitted by calling the bank statement of
the petitioner-husband to assess his monthly income but in
this regard, it is submitted that considering the nature of the
proceeding, at this stage there is no scope to accede to the
submission made by Learned Senior Counsel for the
respondent-wife. Rather, the finding of this Court would be
based upon the evidence on record, adduced by the parties
before the Learned Family Court. As already stated the
petitioner-husband in his written statement submitted that
his monthly salary is Rs.20,000/- including his expenses and
his actual salary is Rs.12,000/- but before the Learned Trial
Court, he relied upon Exhibit-1 from which, it appears that
his total earning is 16,650/- and after deduction he was
getting 14,512/- but that document was not signed and even
the Issuing Authority was not adduced by him to
substantiate his contention. Learned Trial Court, finally,
considering the length of his job over 12 years as a Medical
Representative of a reputed concern, assessed his
remuneration from all sources to Rs. 50,000/- to 60,000/-
per month at the lowest.
15. It is alleged by the petitioner-husband that the
respondent-wife was doing private tuition and from private
tuition, she was earning Rs.30,000/- per month. But in this
regard, no documentary evidence could produce by the
petitioner-husband before the Learned Trial Court. So, this
contention of the Learned Counsel for the petitioner, at the
time of hearing of argument cannot be accepted that the
respondent-wife was earning Rs.30,000/- per month from
her private tuition and the same was not proved by any
cogent evidence on record.
16. Learned Court below also at the time of delivery
of the judgment, relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble
Apex Court in Rajnesh vs. Neha & Anr." in Criminal
Appeal No.730 of 2020 [Arising out of SLP(Crl.)
No.9503 of 2018], and came to the observation that if the
wife is also earning, it cannot operate as a bar from being
awarded maintenance by the husband and finally, awarded
maintenance at the rate of Rs.15,000/- per month.
17. So, after hearing arguments of both the sides and
also after going through the evidence on record of the
parties before the Learned Family Court, it appears that the
petitioner-husband could not conclusively prove that his
monthly income was/is Rs.20,000/- or Rs.14,500/-, in view
of the contradictory evidence on record.
18. Thus, in my considered view, Learned Court below
rightly assessed the monthly income of the petitioner-
husband from Rs.50,000/- to 60,000/- per month, in view of
his long standing job as a Medical Representative in a
reputed concern and as such, I do not find any scope to
interfere with the judgment/final order passed by Learned
Additional Judge, Family Court, Agartala, by order dated
17.06.2023. Before the High Court, after hearing both the
parties, a direction was given to the petitioner on 15.12.2023
to continue to pay the maintenance as ordered by the
Learned Trial Court vide judgment dated 17.06.2023. But in
course of hearing, it appeared that the petitioner-husband
failed to comply with the order. However, the petitioner-
husband is under legal obligation to pay the maintenance
allowance and the arrear maintenance allowance as ordered
by the Learned Trial Court below by judgment dated
17.06.2023 in letter and spirit.
19. In the result, the Revision Petition filed by the
petitioner-husband is hereby dismissed on contest being
devoid of merit. The judgment and order dated 17.06.2023
passed by Learned Additional Judge, Family Court, Agartala
in connection with case No.Crl.Misc.342 of 2018 is hereby
upheld and accordingly, it is affirmed. The husband-
petitioner shall comply the order of the Learned Trial Court
below in letter and spirit to save the respondent-wife to
suffer from a vagrant life. The case is accordingly stands
disposed of.
Send down the LCRs along with a copy of the
judgment.
Pending application(s), if any, also stands
disposed of.
JUDGE
MOUMITA Digitally signed by
MOUMITA DATTA
DATTA Date: 2024.05.24 17:08:30
+05'30'
Purnita
