Tripura High Court
Smt. Bina Sutradhar (Sarkar) vs Sri Swapan Sarkar on 10 January, 2025
Page 1 of 4
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
Crl.Rev.P. No.46 of 2024
1. Smt. Bina Sutradhar (Sarkar), W/O- Sri Swapan Sarkar, D/O- Sri Sunil
Sutradhar
2. Sri Biraj Sarkar (Minor), S/O- Sri Swapan Sarkar,
Both are residents of Village- Durjapur, P.S- Gandachara, District- Dhalai
Tripura.
Present Address: Rajdharnagar, Jamjuri, P.O- Jamjuri, P.S- Kakraban, Udaipur,
Dist-Gomati Tripura.
(The petitioner No.2 being minor, represented by his mother i.e the petitioner
No.1)
.........Petitioner(s);
Versus
1. Sri Swapan Sarkar, S/O- Late Subhash Sarkar, resident of- Durjapur, P.S-
Gandachara, District- Dhalai Tripura.
2. The State of Tripura represented by Secretary-cum-Commissioner of the
State of Tripura.
.........Respondent(s).
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. A. Acharjee, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajib Saha, Addl. P.P.
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. APARESH KUMAR SINGH
Order
10/01/2025
Heard Mr. A. Acharjee, learned counsel for the petitioners who are
the wife and a minor son of respondent No.1 and Mr. Rajib Saha, learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.
2. Notice has been served upon respondent No.1 through DASTI as
per affidavit dated 04.10.2024. However, he has not chosen to appear till date
and contest the case. Petitioners are aggrieved by the quantum of maintenance
i.e. Rs.2,000/- each per month awarded in their favour by the impugned order
dated 21.05.2024 passed in Crl. Misc. 93 of 2021 under Section 125 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
3. Mr. A. Acharjee, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that
respondent No.1 is a government employee having a minimum salary of
Rs.19,140/- as reflected in Exbt.1. Petitioner No.1 who was married to the
respondent No.1 on 11.03.2020 is not engaged in any work or employment.
Due to marital discord, she had to institute a criminal case against the
respondent No.1, her mother-in-law and sister-in-law under Section 498A/34
IPC. A son was born out of the wedlock on 22.02.2021 who is residing with the
petitioner No.1. He is studying in nursery. Learned counsel for the petitioners
further submits that the learned Family Court has awarded a meager sum of
Rs.2,000/- each per month in their favour which is not only inadequate for
proper sustenance and meeting their daily expenses and nutritional needs, but is
also against the accepted position in law that the destitute wife and minor
children are at least entitled to 1/3rd of the net income of the husband in order to
maintain a decent standard of leaving with which the wife was used to while
living in the matrimonial home. He also submits that there was reasonable
cause for the petitioner No.1 to leave the matrimonial home because of mental
and physical torture which led to the institution of a case under Section
498A/34 IPC. Petitioner adduced two witnesses including herself and her
mother as PW 2. Both adduced the same facts and could not be dislodged in
cross-examination by the defense.
4. The learned Family Court has recorded that marriage between the
parties is not in dispute and the husband has a minimum income of Rs.19,140/-
per month from salary reflected in Exbt.1 adduced by PW 1. However, without
appreciating the correct legal position and the needs of the wife and minor son
living in separation and the costs of living in present day, the learned Family
Court erroneously awarded a sum of Rs.4,000/- in the ratio of Rs.2,000/- each
per month to both the petitioners which is not in consonance with law and to
meet the sustenance. Therefore, they have approached this Court in revision
under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for the
petitioners submits that the maintenance amount may be adequately enhanced.
5. Mr. Rajib Saha, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the
respondent-State, submits that the State is only a formal party in such matters as
it is an inter se dispute between the husband and the wife for maintenance. The
records however show that respondent No.1 was having a minimum income of
Rs.19,140/- per month as a government employee working in the Tripura State
Electricity Corporation Limited, Kamalpur Sub-Division as Helper Gr-II. The
salary of any such government or semi-government employee is liable for
periodical revision and other allowances as well from time to time. The
proceedings were initiated in the year 2021 and four years have elapsed since
then. Therefore, this Court may pass appropriate order as may deem fit in the
facts and circumstances of the case and as per the principles of law in that
regard.
6. I have considered the submission of learned counsel for the
petitioners and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.
Respondent No.1 despite service of notice has not chosen to
appear and contest the case. The findings of the learned Family Court on the
issue of subsisting marriage between the petitioner No.1 and respondent No.1
and the fact that respondent No.1 is an employee of Tripura State Electricity
Corporation Limited having a salary of Rs.19,140/- per month in 2022 are not
in dispute nor assailed. However though petitioner No.1 is not earning and
without any other sources of income and petitioner No.2 is a minor son aged
four years by now, born in February, 2021 whose nutritional and other needs
require enough financial support, the learned Family Court has chosen to award
a sum of Rs.2,000/- per month each to both the petitioners though as per the
settled principles of law, in such matters the destitute wife should be granted
25% of the net income of the husband and in cases where minor children are to
be maintained at least one-third of the net income of the husband should be
granted as maintenance. This would enable to meet their needs and maintain a
standard of living which the wife was accustomed to while living in the
matrimonial home.
7. In such circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the amount
of maintenance should be enhanced to the tune of Rs.3,000/- each per month in
favour of both the petitioner No.1 and petitioner No.2; however effective from
the date of the present judgment. The impugned judgment is modified to that
extent. The instant petition is disposed of.
(APARESH KUMAR SINGH), CJ
Pijush/
DIPESH DEB Date: 2025.01.17 15:00:01
