[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Tripura High Court
Khurshedur Rahaman vs Tania Aktar on 7 April, 2026
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
Crl.Rev.P.No.66 of 2025
Khurshedur Rahaman,
S/o- Lt. Abdul Barek,
Of village- Madhya Boxanagar, P.S.- Kalamchora,
District- Sepahijala Tripura
....Petitioner(s).
Versus
1. Tania Aktar
W/o- Khurshedur Rahaman
2. Akhinur Jannat (Minor)
D/o- Khurshedur Rahaman
(The Respondent No.2 being minor is represented through her
mother-Respondent No.1 herein)
Both are Resident of- Rahimpur, P.S.- Kalamcherrah,
District-Sepahijala Tripura
.......Respondent(s).
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Samarjit Bhattacharjee, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Ms. Sutapa Deb Barman, Adv.
Date of Hearing : 31.03.2026
Date of delivery of
Judgment and Order : 06.04.2026
Whether fit for
Reporting : YES/NO
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BISWAJIT PALIT
Judgment & Order
This revision petition is filed challenging the judgment
and order dated 23.09.2025 delivered by Learned Judge,
Family Court, Sepahijala District, Sonamura in connection with
case No.Criminal Misc. 01 of 2024.
02. Heard Learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. S.
Bhattacharjee and also heard Learned Counsel for the
respondent, Ms. S. Deb Barman.
03. Taking part in the hearing, Learned Counsel drawn
the attention of the Court that the respondent O.P. No.1 filed
one maintenance case against the present petitioner-husband
and after hearing Learned Court below allowed order of
maintenance in favour of the respondents and directed the
DDO of the O.P. to remit the money to the respondent-
petitioners at the rate of 50% (25%+25%) of the net salary of
the O.P. It was further submitted that the way the Learned
Trial Court passed the order was not in-accordance-with law
which was inviolation of the order of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in series of cases. It was further submitted referring the
pay slip of the present petitioner-husband that he is drawing
Rs.34,692/- at present and apart from that he has taken loan
for which he is to pay EMIs and after deduction of those
amounts a very poor amount remains under him and if the
order is not modified then the present petitioner-husband shall
be highly prejudiced and would lead to starvation. He also
referred few citations of this High Court wherein the practice of
directing the DDO to deduct the monthly salary was deprecated
and urged for modification of this order.
04. On the other hand, Learned Counsel for the
respondent-petitioners drawn the attention of the Court that as
per order dated 13.11.2025 the husband-petitioner is to pay
Rs.40,000/- but out of that only Rs.20,000/ is paid. So, the
conduct of the respondent-husband was not at all satisfactory
and furthermore, Learned Trial Court after considering the
evidence on record has delivered the judgment in favour of the
respondent-petitioners and there is no scope to interfere with
the judgment delivered by Learned Trial Court and prayed for
dismissal of this revision petition.
05. I have heard both the sides at length and perused
the judgment of the Learned Trial Court. In para No.31 of the
judgment Learned Trial Court mentioned that the O.P. himself
admitted that after statutory deduction, he gets Rs.28,790/-
and from that amount he is to pay bank loan of Rs.18,000/-,
thus, Rs.10,790/- remains under him and from that amount he
is paying Rs.3,000/-. In determining the petition, Learned Trial
Court formulated few points because in this case the
petitioner-husband did not dispute his marriage with the
respondent-petitioner No.1 and also the paternity of the
respondent-petitioner No.2. Learned Trial Court elaborately
discussed everything but in para No.90 he passed an order for
50% deduction from the net salary of the petitioner-husband
which in my considered view was not proper and in deciding
the matter Learned Trial Court relied upon the judgment of
Kalyan Dey Chowdhury v. Rita Dey Chowdhury Nee
Nandy (2017) 14 SCC 200 and Dr. Kulbhushan v. Raj
Kumari & Anr. (1970) 3 SCC 129 of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India. In all the judgments, it was suggested that 25%
deduction would be appropriate towards maintenance. But in
Rajnesh v. Neha & Anr. (2021) 2 SCC 324 there is no such
direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court regarding percentage
of amount to be deducted from the salary of the petitioner-
husband. It is also the admitted position that the present
petitioner is presently drawing a net salary of Rs.34,692/- as
per salary slip for the month of June, 2025 and from that
amount he is also incurring the expenditures of EMI. It is also
the settled position that taking the plea of payment of EMI, the
petitioner-husband cannot take the plea to evade payment of
maintenance allowance to his wife and daughter and as such in
the considered opinion of this Court, the petitioner-husband is
under legal obligation to pay maintenance to the respondent-
petitioners. However, considering the facts and circumstance of
the case, it appears to this Court that if the petitioner is asked
to pay maintenance to his wife at the rate of Rs.7,000/- per
month and Rs.5,000/- per month to the minor daughter till
attaining her majority i.e. in total 12,000/- per month then the
purpose of justice would suffice which shall be payable from
the date of filing of the application by the respondent-
petitioners i.e. w.e.f. 03.01.2024.
06. In the result the revision petition filed by the
petitioner-husband is hereby allowed. The order of the Learned
Trial Court is modified to the extent that the petitioner-
husband shall pay maintenance from the month of January
2024 onwards at the rate of Rs.7,000/- per month to the
respondent-petitioner No.1 and Rs.5,000/- per month to the
respondent-petitioner No.2 till she attains her majority or gets
married. The amount, if paid, towards maintenance by this
time shall be adjusted towards the maintenance allowance
passed by this Court including the arrears, if any, if remain
unpaid shall be paid by the petitioner-husband in favour of the
respondent-petitioners in equal installments. However, the
other observations of the Learned Trial Court is not interfered
with.
Supply a copy of this order to Learned Counsel of
both the sides free of cost. Also send down the record to the
Learned Trial Court along with a copy of this judgment/order.
With this observation, this present revision petition
stands disposed of on contest.
Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed
of.
JUDGE
PURNITA Digitally signed by
PURNITA DEB
DEB Date: 2026.04.08 18:30:13
+05'30'
Purnita
