Tripura High Court
Smt. Saraswati Lodh (Roy) & Another vs Sri Naba Kumar Roy on 10 January, 2025
Page 1 of 3
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
Crl.Rev.P. No.22/2024
Smt. Saraswati Lodh (Roy) & another
......... Petitioner(s).
VERSUS
Sri Naba Kumar Roy
......... Respondent(s).
For Petitioner (s) : Ms. S. Deb Barman, Advocate,
Ms. A. Debbarma, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. H.K. Bhowmik, Advocate.
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. APARESH KUMAR SINGH
Order
10/01/2025
Wife being aggrieved by non-enhancement of monthly
maintenance from Rs.2,500/- (rupees two thousand five hundred) granted
earlier on 14.01.2016 has approached this Court in revision along with the
daughter in whose favour the monthly maintenance was enhanced from
Rs.1,500/- to Rs.5,000/- by the learned Judge, Family Court, Agartala, West
Tripura in Crl.Misc. case No.01 of 2022 vide judgment dated 17.11.2023.
The materials placed before the learned Family Court go to show
that both the parties adduced 3(three) witnesses and the learned Family Court
considered the notification of minimum daily wages issued by the Department
of Labour for a daily waged labour as Rs.350/- per day but proceeded to
compute the net income of the respondent-husband in the range of Rs.15,000/-
as he is working in a pathological laboratory. Since the wife was also treated
to be an earning member, no enhancement was allowed in her favour.
However, just after passing of the impugned order, a decree of divorce has
been granted in favour of the respondent-husband in T.S.(Divorce) No.95 of
2020 vide decree dated 30.11.2024 passed by the same Court.
On the other hand, T.S.(RCR) No.37 of 2021 instituted by the
wife under Section 22 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 has been dismissed.
The two decrees have been placed by Mr. H.K. Bhowmik, learned counsel for
the respondent-husband. He submits that the parties were living in separation
for 9(nine) years. Now the marriage has been dissolved. However, he suggests
that instead of agitating a claim for enhancement of maintenance in favour of
the wife, the petitioner No.1 and the respondent should enter into an amicable
settlement on the question of permanent alimony.
Ms. S. Deb Barman, learned counsel for the petitioner, also agrees
to the proposal. She submits that she would ask her client to enter into a
negotiation for amicable settlement on this issue. Therefore, the matter may be
adjourned for some time.
Learned counsel for the parties propose that it would be proper if
the parties are referred to the learned Mediator.
In that view of the matter, let the parties appear before the learned
Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee on 21.01.2025 at 10.30 a.m.
On their appearance, the matter be placed before the learned Mediator, High
Court Legal Services Committee for undertaking the exercise.
Parties are expected to cooperate with an open mind in the
mediation proceedings in arriving at an amicable settlement on the issue of
permanent alimony and attend each of the sittings. Learned Mediator would
fix the dates for mediation as per the convenience of the parties. If the parties
are able to arrive at an amicable settlement, the terms and conditions thereof be
reduced in writing under their joint signatures and be placed along with the
report before this Court 4(four) weeks thereafter.
The matter be listed on 28.02.2025 along with the report.
(APARESH KUMAR SINGH), CJ
Pulak
PULAK BANIK Digitally signed by PULAK BANIK
Date: 2025.01.10 16:56:42 +05'30'
