Tripura High Court
Smt. Diptasikha Adhya(Deb) And Anr vs Sri Sourav Adhya on 7 September, 2024
Author: T. Amarnath Goud
Bench: T. Amarnath Goud
Page 1 of 3
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
Crl.Rev.P 59 of 2024
Smt. Diptasikha Adhya(Deb) and Anr. ......Petitioner(s)
Versus
Sri Sourav Adhya .......Respondent(s)
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. P. K Ghosh, Advocate.
For the Respondent(s) : None.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T. AMARNATH GOUD
ORDER
07.09.2024
Heard Mr. PK Ghosh, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners. None appears on behalf of respondent.
[2] This Present petition has been filed under section 397 read with
section 401 of the Cr.P.C seeking the following reliefs :-
"i. Admit the revision petition.
ii. Call for the records.
iii. Issue notice upon the respondent,
AND
iv. After hearing the parties your lordship may be pleased to enhance
the order of maintenance from Rs.8,000/- (Rupees Eight Thousand)
per month to Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) per month in
favour of the petitioners and set aside the order dated 25.04.2024
passed by the learned Family Court, Agartala, West Tripura in
connection with case No. Crl. Misc. 391 of 2020 and may pass any
other order or orders as your Lordship may think fit and proper."
[3] Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated
25.04.2024 passed by the Learned Judge, Family Court, Agartala, West
Tripura in connection with Case No.Crl. Misc. 391 of 2020 the present
revision petition has been preferred by the petitioners.
[4] Mr. P K Ghosh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners
submits before this court that the impugned order dated 25.04.2024 is
contrary to law. The learned Court below has fixed the income of the
respondent-husband at least of Rs. 40,000/- per month in all probability.
Although respondent-husband is earning much higher than this. He further
submits that out of Rs.40,000/- the petitioners herein could be provided
Rs.20,000/- per month as maintenance allowance. But the learned Court
below has granted only Rs.8,000/- per month as maintenance for the
petitioners which is not just and proper in the eye of law.
[5] Heard and perused the evidence on record.
[6] It is seen from the order of the learned Court below that the
respondent-husband is earning at least of Rs. 40,000/- per month and has
the responsibility of parents. The said factual position cannot be ignored
while fixing the maintenance amount.
[7] It is also observed that while fixing the maintenance allowance
the learned Court below followed the Judgment and Order of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court passed in Kalyan Dey Chowdhury Vs. Rita Dey
Chowdhury Nee Nandy, reported in (2017) 14 SCC 200, in which the
Hon'ble Apex Court has followed the quantum of maintenance fixed by the
Apex Court in another land mark judgment in Dr.Kulbhushan Kumar Vs.
Smt. Raj Kumari and Another reported in 1970 (3) SCC 129 wherein, it
has been held that 25% of the net income of the husband should be paid to
the wife as maintenance. This court also while fixing the maintenance of
allowance does not find any infirmity with the order impugned passed by the
learned Court below.
[8] In view of the analysis made by the Learned Court below and
after going through the material evidence on record, this Court is of the view
that the maintenance as awarded by the learned Family Court is just and
proper and needs no interference. Thus, the findings as arrived by the
learned Family Court stands affirmed. Consequently, the present petition
stands dismissed.
As a sequel, miscellaneous application(s) pending if any, shall
stand closed.
JUDGE
Paritosh
RAJKUMAR Digitally signed by
RAJKUMAR
SUHANJIT SUHANJIT SINGHA
Date: 2024.09.13
SINGHA 12:02:27 +05'30'
