CRL. REV. P No. 53 of 2022 · Tripura High Court
Case at a glance
Outcome
Allowed
In the light of the above, the present petition stands allowed and
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 22. The State of Tripura. .....Respondents. For Petitioner(s) For Respondent(s) : : Mr. D. C. Nath, Advocate. Mr. S. Debnath, Addl. P.P. Mr. D. Debnath, Advocate. Date of hearing and Delivery of judgment And order Whether fit for reporting : 15.12.2022. NO : HON’BLE THE…
Judgment
Sri Santi Ranjan Acharjee, son of late Manindra Acharjee, presently residing at Paschim Noabadi, Durga Chowdhury Para, P.S. Bodhjungnagar, District: West Tripura.
The State of Tripura. .....Respondents. For Petitioner(s) For Respondent(s) : : Mr. D. C. Nath, Advocate. Mr. S. Debnath, Addl. P.P. Mr. D. Debnath, Advocate. Date of hearing and Delivery of judgment And order Whether fit for reporting : 15.12.2022. NO : HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE (ACTING) JUDGMENT AND ORDER [ORAL] Heard Mr. D. C. Nath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. S. Debnath, learned Addl. P.P. and Mr. D. Debnath, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. [2] This revision petition has been filed under Sections-397/401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 read with Section-19 (4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 against the order dated 15.06.2022 passed by the learned Family Judge, Court No.1, West Tripura, Agartala in connection with Misc (Int)100 of 2022 whereby and whereunder, rejected the prayer for interim maintenance made by the petitioners. [3] The case of the petitioners is that they being refused by the respondent No.1 to provide maintenance allowance, petitioners herein filed an application against the respondent No.1 under Section-125 Cr.
P.C. before the learned Judge, Family Court, West Tripura, Agartala being case No. Misc.99 of 2022 for granting maintenance allowance. The petitioners also filed a separate application for interim maintenance and the said case was registered as Misc (Int)100 of 2022. [4] After receiving the notice from the learned Court, the respondent appeared and filed written objection against both the applications. The respondent No.1 in his written objection denied all the allegations and after hearing the parties, the learned Judge, Family Court rejected the prayer for interim maintenance on 15.06.2022. [5] After hearing the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and also appreciating the material evidence on record the Court below has observed as under: “Taking into consideration the submission of both the sides at this point this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner No.1 is residing in her own house and I do not find any sort of inconvenience to be faced by her, so, as to allow her prayer for interim maintenance.
The interim maintenance petition for the petitioners do not satisfy this Court as to the reason why they require the interim maintenance. Further, there is no prima facie proof of the fact that the petitioner No.2 who is an adult is physically challenged and unable to earn for himself. The prayer of the petitioners at this point for interim relief is thus rejected. The entitlement of maintenance shall be decided on recording of evidence in main case no merit.” [6] Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order, the petitioners have preferred this petition before this Court for adjudication. [7] The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that the Court below has wrongly appreciated the provisions of Section-125 Cr. P.C. and on such wrong appreciation passed the impugned order contrary to the provisions of the Section-125 Cr. P.C. The learned Court below has miserably failed to appreciate that the petitioner No.1 is the legally married wife and petitioner No.2 is the disabled son of the respondent No.1 and the respondent No.1 is under obligation to maintain the petitioners. [8] He has further submitted that the learned Court below has failed to appreciate that the petitioners are entitled for interim maintenance till disposal of the case and also failed to consider that the respondent No.1 is under obligation to maintain his legally married wife and her disabled son as they have no source of income to maintain themselves.
Operative part
Due to willful neglect and non-payment of maintenance, the petitioners are passing their days in severe form of hardship. [9] After hearing the learned counsel appearing for the parties, this Court is of the view that admittedly, the petitioner No.1 is the legally wedded wife and since the husband and wife are presently staying separately for certain reasons [it is not for this Court to appreciate the contention at this level in this petition]. [10] Accordingly, respondent-husband shall pay monthly maintenance amounting to Rs.4,000/- per month only for the petitioner wife. Insofar as the petitioner No.2 is concerned, as he is major, married and an employee, he is not entitled for any maintenance. Accordingly, the same is ordered. It is made clear that this interim arrangement is made till the main petition is decided. [11] In the light of the above, the present petition stands allowed and
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: In the light of the above, the present petition stands allowed and
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Family Courts Act, 1984.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.