Sri Trideep Dey vs Smt. Anwesha Dey & Another
2025 Latest Caselaw 908 Tri

Tripura High Court

Sri Trideep Dey vs Smt. Anwesha Dey & Another on 7 April, 2025

                                    Page 1 of 2




                          HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                                AGARTALA
                     IA No.01/2025 in Crl.Rev.P. No.03 of 2025
Sri Trideep Dey
                                                    .........Applicant/Petitioner(s);
                                      Versus
Smt. Anwesha Dey & another
                                                           .........Respondent(s).

For Applicant/Petitioner(s) : Ms. Ayantika Chakraborty, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Saugat Datta, Advocate, Ms. Maithi Majumder, Advocate.

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. APARESH KUMAR SINGH

Order 07/04/2025

Heard Ms. Ayantika Chakraborty, learned counsel for the

applicant/petitioner and Mr. Saugat Datta, learned counsel for the respondents

on the prayer for condonation of delay of 203 days in preferring the instant

revision petition.

According to learned counsel for the applicant, some time was

consumed after the judgment was delivered in obtaining the certified copy of

the judgment. Applicant resides at Guwahati and is engaged in a private

service. He also approached his learned counsel and took some time to think

over the matter. Thereafter another counsel was engaged, but since he was out

of station due to treatment of his father, no further steps could be taken. Certain

other incidences took place in relation to the said counsel. Thereafter, applicant

has engaged the present counsel. Therefore, delay is not intentional. Since it is a

case of award of maintenance much beyond the salary of the petitioner which,

according to him, is Rs.17,000/- per month only, petitioner is unable to comply

with the order. It is submitted that if the main revision petition is not heard on

merits, it may cause serious injustice to him.

Learned counsel for the respondents-wife and minor daughter has

opposed the prayer. He submits that the husband has not been paying the

arrears of maintenance also. Respondents are being made to face penury.

Therefore, prayer for condonation of delay of 203 days is opposed.

I have considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties

and taken note of the materials placed on record. On consideration of the stand

of the rival parties, it appears that the applicant is residing in a different state

and despite his efforts, his previously engaged counsel could not take steps for

filing of the revision petition in time. Thereafter, the present counsel was

approached. In the process, delay of 203 days has been occasioned.

Respondents though have filed an objection, but on consideration of the totality

of the facts and circumstances that it is a maintenance case between the parties,

I am inclined to condone the delay of 203 days in preferring the instant revision

petition in the interest of justice.

IA stands disposed of.

Let the main matter [Crl.Rev.P. No.03/2025] be listed under the

heading "For Admission" after two weeks.

(APARESH KUMAR SINGH), CJ

Pijush/ MUNNA SAHA Digitally signed by MUNNA SAHA Date: 2025.04.08 11:55:41 +05'30'