The Tripura High Court declined to intervene in a Trial Court's decision that awarded a maintenance allowance of Rs. 50,000 per month to the wife and stated that the revisional court has very limited authority to re-assess the evidence upon which the original judgement was based.
Brief Facts:
In this case, the husband, who is the petitioner, faces multiple accusations of cruelty from his wife, the respondent. The Learned Family Court issued a ruling requiring the husband to provide a monthly maintenance of Rs. 50,000 to his wife, effective from January 1, 2023. The husband has contested this decision by filing a revision petition.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The counsel for the petitioner argued that the Learned Court below overlooked the husband's claim that he discovered the existence of his wife's daughter from a previous marriage three years after their wedding, alleging that his wife concealed this information, constituting fraud and deceit.
Additionally, he stated that the respondent's wife voluntarily left the matrimonial home, which, in his view, disqualifies her from receiving any maintenance. He emphasized that this aspect was not considered by the Learned Court.
The Learned Counsel also highlighted that the final order from the Learned Family Court lacked specific observations or findings on how the maintenance amount was determined. He argued that without clear reasoning for the maintenance quantum, the order lacks sustainability. Therefore, he urged the Court to overturn the decision made by the Learned Court below.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The learned counsel for the respondent argued that the Learned Family Court correctly set the maintenance at Rs. 50,000 per month. He contended that the revision petition's grounds are too vague to merit consideration, pointing out that if the husband had known about his wife's daughter three years into their marriage, he could have legally challenged the marriage. However, he took no legal action from 2003 to 2019, which undermines his current claim.
Furthermore, it was emphasized that the petitioner's husband, employed in a high-ranking position at O.N.G.C., earns over Rs. 3 lakhs monthly. Given his substantial income, the learned counsel argued that the maintenance could have been set at Rs. 1 lakh. However, the Learned Court below awarded only Rs. 50,000. The respondent's counsel urged this Court to increase the maintenance amount while dismissing the revision petition.
Observations of the Court:
In this case, the court observed that the marriage between the petitioner husband and respondent-wife under the Special Marriage Act is undisputed, with both having children from previous marriages. Their union occurred in 2003, and a maintenance case emerged in 2019, marking a period with no other disputes on record between them.
The bench noted that the petitioner's husband's arguments focused on two issues:
- the alleged non-disclosure by his wife of having a daughter at the time of their marriage
- the lack of specific observations by the Learned Court below when setting the monthly maintenance of Rs. 50,000.
Upon examining evidence from both sides, the Court found no substantial challenge from the husband regarding his wife's alleged concealment, except in his written objections. The wife, facing marital issues, lived with her parents. Despite earning over Rs. 3 lakhs monthly, the husband did not provide maintenance to his wife, who earns a modest Rs. 10,000 from her school job. The Court held that the husband is legally bound to support his wife, especially as he couldn't refute her claims of maintenance refusal during cross-examination.
The bench reiterated the Hon’ble Supreme Court's position that the revisional Court has limited scope to reassess evidence that the Learned Trial Court already thoroughly reviewed. The Court did not find any convincing evidence that the husband was unaware of his wife's daughter until three years into their marriage. As per the court, it seemed he knew about her daughter from a previous marriage before their own wedding, with the daughter moving in with them three years later.
The decision of the Court:
In this case, considering all the observations made and the overall context of this case, the court dismissed the revision petition.
Case Title: Shri Milanmoy Dewan Vs. Smt. Sharmistha Dewan (Ghosh)
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Biswajit Palit
Case No.: CRL. REV. P. NO. 23 OF 2023
Advocate for the Applicant: Mr. C.S. Sinha
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. P. Roy, Mr. S. Bhattacharjee
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
