[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Tripura High Court
Smt. Nandita Das vs Sri Dibakar Debnath on 9 March, 2026
1
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
Crl.Rev.P.No.19 of 2026
Smt. Nandita Das,
W/O- Sri Dibakar Debnath,
C/O-Sri Samir Das,
R/O- Gandhi Ghat, Near Vivekananda Beyamagar,
Town Bordowali, Agartala,
P.O.- Agartala, P.S.- West Agartala,
District- West Tripura, Pin-799001, Aged about 34 years.
---- Petitioner(s)
Versus
Sri Dibakar Debnath,
S/O- Sri Nepal Debnath,
R/O- Ramnagar Road No.9.
P.O.- Agartala, P.S.- West Agartala,
District- West Tripura, Pin-799002, Aged about-43 years.
----Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ankan Tilak Pal, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Raju Datta, P.P.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BISWAJIT PALIT
Order
09.03.2026
This petition under Section 438 read with Section 442
of BNSS corresponding to Section 397 of Cr.P.C. read with Section
401 of Cr.P.C. is filed challenging the judgment and order dated
19.12.2025 passed by Learned Judge, Family Court, Agartala,
West Tripura in Crl.Misc.(int.) 405 of 2025. By the said judgment
and order, Learned Judge, Family Court, Agartala, West Tripura
has awarded maintenance of Rs.14,000/- per month in favour of
the petitioner-wife w.e.f. 07.07.2025.
Heard Learned Counsel, Mr. A. K. Pal appearing on
behalf of the petitioner-wife. Learned P.P., Mr. R. Datta is present
on behalf of the State.
At the time of hearing, Learned Counsel for the
petitioner-wife submitted that the respondent-O.P. is able-bodied
and is a Government servant earning more than Rs.90,000/- per
month but the Learned Judge, Family Court has only awarded
Rs.14,000/- per month as maintenance in favour of the petitioner-
wife for which the petitioner has filed this petition for
enhancement of the amount of maintenance awarded by the
Learned Judge, Family Court.
Learned P.P. appearing on behalf of the State fairly
submitted that the original proceeding bearing No.Crl.Misc.403 of
2025 is still pending for disposal and in a proceeding for
maintenance under Section under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., there is
scope for enhancement of maintenance allowance and since the
main case is pending for disposal and the petitioner has got the
ample scope for adducing her evidence to substantiate the income
of the respondent-husband and as such by this petition there is no
scope to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court for enhancement of
the amount of maintenance. Furthermore, it was also submitted
that in view of Section 397 of Cr.P.C. as well as Section 19(4) of
the Family Courts Act, there is clear bar to file any revision
petition against an interlocutory order. So, this present petition is
not maintainable. Being asked, Learned Counsel for the petitioner
submitted that there are series of judgments that against the
order of interim maintenance, there is scope for filing revision
petition as per law. So, this present petition is very much
maintainable.
For the sake of convenience, let us reproduce herein
below the relevant provision of Section 438 of BNSS which is
corresponding to erstwhile provision of Section 397 of Cr.P.C:
"438. Calling for records to exercise powers of
revision.- (1) The High Court or any Sessions Judge
may call for and examine the record of any proceeding
before any inferior Criminal Court situate within its or
his local jurisdiction for the purpose of satisfying itself
or himself as to the correctness, legality or propriety
of any finding, sentence or order, recorded or passed,
and as to the regularity of any proceedings of such
inferior Court, and may, when calling, for such record,
direct that the execution of any sentence or order be
suspended, and if the accused is in confinement that
he be released on his own bond or bail bond pending
the examination of the record.
Explanation.--All Magistrates, whether Executive or
Judicial, and whether exercising original or appellate
jurisdiction, shall be deemed to be inferior to the
Sessions Judge for the purposes of this subsection and
of section 439.
(2) The powers of revision conferred by sub-
section (1) shall not be exercised in relation to any
interlocutory order passed in any appeal, inquiry, trial
or other proceeding.
(3) If an application under this section has been made
by any person either to the High Court or to the
Sessions Judge, no further application by the same
person shall be entertained by the other of them."
From the aforesaid sub-Section 2 of Section 438, it
appears that the powers of revision as conferred in sub-Section 1
of aforesaid Section shall not be exercised in relation to any
interlocutory order.
Similarly, let us reproduce herein below the relevant
provision of Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act which provides
as under:
"19.(4) The High Court may, of its own motion or
otherwise, call for and examine the record of any
proceeding in which the Family Court situate within its
jurisdiction passed an order under Chapter IX of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) for the
purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness,
legality or propriety of the order, not being an
interlocutory order, and as to the regularity of such
proceeding.]"
From the aforesaid provision, further, it appears to this
Court that the High Court of its own motion or otherwise call for
and examine the record of any proceeding in which the Family
Court situates within its jurisdiction passed an order for the
purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or
propriety of the order, but cannot exercise jurisdiction in respect
of an interlocutory order. From the aforesaid provisions of law, it
is crystal clear that in respect of interlocutory order, there is no
scope to prefer any revision petition.
Here in this case at hand, by order dated 19.12.2025
the interim application which was numbered as Crl.Misc.(int.)405
of 2025 has been finally disposed of. But it is also the admitted
position that the original proceeding bearing No.Crl.Misc.No.403 of
2025 is still pending for adjudication. From the order of the
Learned Family Judge, it appears that in the order it has been
specifically stated that the husband has admitted his gross salary
Rs.83,957/- but no evidence was adduced before the Learned
Judge, Family Court by either of the parties and the Learned
Judge, Family Court without assigning any justified reasons,
determined the interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.14,000/-
per month w.e.f. 07.07.2025 and asked the respondent-husband
to pay the same amount.
Challenging that order, the petitioner-wife has
preferred this petition before this Court for enhancement of the
amount of maintenance from Rs.14,000/- to Rs.30,000/-. As
already stated the original case is still pending for adjudication. In
the main proceeding there will be scope for the parties to adduce
their evidence to substantiate the actual monthly income of the
respondent-husband to determine the amount of maintenance
allowance by the Learned Judge, Family Court.
So, in absence of evidence on record this Court does
not find any scope to pass any order for enhancement of the
interim maintenance awarded by Learned Judge, Family Court by
order dated 19.12.2025 till disposal of the original petition bearing
No.Crl.Misc.No.403 of 2025 and as such this Court is not inclined
to pass any order for enhancement of maintenance as prayed for
by the petitioner-wife at this stage. Accordingly, the same stands
rejected being devoid of merit. However, the petitioner is at
liberty to adduce her evidence before the Learned Judge, Family
Court to substantiate the monthly income of the respondent-
husband accordingly. The Learned Judge, Family Court shall make
all endeavour to dispose of the original petition bearing
No.Crl.Misc.No.403 of 2025 within a period of six (6) months from
the date of receipt of the copy of this order.
A copy of this order accordingly be communicated to
the Learned Judge, Family Court, Agartala for information and
compliance.
With this observation, this present petition stands
disposed of.
JUDGE
PURNITA DEB DEB
Date: 2026.03.10 14:44:03
+05'30'
Purnita
