Kamal Kasim vs .
2024 Latest Caselaw 1729 Tri

Tripura High Court

Kamal Kasim vs . on 7 October, 2024

Author: T. Amarnath Goud

Bench: T. Amarnath Goud

                                     Page 1 of 3




                             HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                                   AGARTALA
                             CRL.REV.P. NO.64 OF 2024
     Kamal Kasim
     Vs.
     Babita Begam and anr.

               HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T. AMARNATH GOUD

     Present:
     For the Petitioner(s)           :   Mr. T.D. Majumder, Sr. Advocate.
                                         Mr. T. Halam, Advocate.

     For the Respondent(s)           : Mr. R. Datta, P.P.

Mr. S. Ghosh, Addl.P.P.

07.10.2024

Order

Heard Mr. T.D. Majumder, learned Sr. counsel assisted

by Mr. T. Halam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well

as Mr. R. Datta, learned counsel, and Mr. S. Ghosh, learned Addl.

P.P., appearing for the State-respondent.

2. This present petition has been filed for quashing the

Judgment and Order dated 21.08.2024 passed by the learned Addl.

Sessions Judge, North Tripura in Criminal Appeal No.02 of 2024

confirming the Order of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1 st Class

Dharmanagar, North Tripura dated 18.12.2023 in Case No.DOM 30 of

2022.

3. The case of the petitioner-husband is that, at the time

of the marriage, both the petitioner and the respondent-spouse were

minor and as such, the marriage is invalid. The petitioner further

stated that there was no cohabitation between them and without any

prayer for maintenance, the learned Court below granted Rs.1000/-

for household expenses and Rs.2,500/- for maintenance of

respondent-spouse and their son. As such, learned Sr. counsel

appearing for the petitioner prayed before this Court to quash the

impugned Orders passed by the Courts below.

4. Heard and perused the evidence on record.

5. The petitioner herein has not proved to say that he and

his spouse were minor at the time of marriage as such the marriage is

invalid. However, it is seen from the record that the petitioner had

lead a marital life with the respondent-spouse in Bangalore for few

months and having cohabited, now, it is not open for him to say that

he has not cohabited with her. It is also seen from the record that in

result of the said cohabitation, the respondent-spouse herein has

given birth to a child. The petitioner has not denied the marriage with

his spouse and his relationship with their minor child. In fact, the

petitioner has not taken any steps to deny his relationship with the

minor child. So, obviously, it is settled principle of law that the

respondent-spouse and his son are entitled to maintenance for their

survival. As such, this Court finds no infirmities with the impugned

orders passed by the Courts below and the same requires no

interference. Hence the present revision petition stands dismissed and

the impugned Orders as passed by the Courts below stands

confirmed.

6. As a sequel, stay if any stands vacated. Pending

application(s), if any also stands closed.

                                                                                         JUDGE




        Suhanjit

RAJKUMAR        SUHANJIT SINGHA

SUHANJIT SINGHA Date: 2024.10.07 13:16:05 +05'30'