DIPAK DEBNATH Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA
LAWS(TRIP)-2021-4-14
HIGH COURT TRIPURA
Decided on April 08,2021

Dipak Debnath Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF TRIPURA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

AKIL KURESHI,J. - (1.) Petitioner is husband of respondent No.2. He has challenged an order dated 1st May 2019, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Agartala, in the proceedings instituted by the respondent No.2-wife under the provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. In particular, the petitioner is aggrieved by the following directions contained in the said order : The respondent No.1 is further directed to secure alternate accommodation for the aggrieved petitioner or to pay the rent for the same in an area which is suitable to the aggrieved petitioner up to Rs.3,000/- per month until disposal of CR 13 of 2019. The respondent No.1 is further directed to make payment of Rs.2,000/- per month as medical expenses to the aggrieved petitioner till disposal of the main case CR 13 of 19. .'
(2.) Case of the petitioner is that the Family Court by an order dated 25th April, 2018 has already awarded interim maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month to the wife under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act pending proceedings before the Family Court. Thereafter, there was no scope for the learned Magistrate to award any further amounts to the wife under the proceedings under Domestic Violence Act. Counsel submitted that the wife is residing with her parents and, therefore, she is not entitled to rent.
(3.) The petitioner has not produced order dated 25th April 2018, passed by the Family Court, a copy of which is tendered by the counsel for the petitioner is taken on record. This order is a short one and needs reproduction. It reads as under : 'The petitioner Smt. Anita Das is present. The opposite party Sri Dipak Debnath is also present and submitted written objection against the petition u/s 24 of Hindu Marriage Act supplying a copy to the other side. Perused the same. Keep it with the case record. He has also submitted some document by separate firisty. Perused the same. Keep it with the case record. Today the instant case is fixed for submission of written objection and hearing. Heard both sides and considered. It appears that the petitioner Smt. Anita Das filed the instant petition seeking litigation cost of Rs.30,000/- and maintenance pendente lite of Rs.35,000/- per month from the husband-opposite party. At the time of hearing the opposite party has submitted that at present he is receiving net salary of Rs.50,812/- and he has also some outstanding dues an amount of more than Rs.20,000/- and as such considering his present financial condition the necessary order may be passed. I have perused the documents submitted by the opposite party and also considered the submission of the opposite party and also perusal of the same it appears to me that an amount of Rs.4,000/- appears to be reasonable for cost of litigation and an amount of Rs.3,000/- per month as maintenance pendente lite from 01-05-2017 till disposal of the main petition. In view of the above, the instant case is hereby disposed of accordingly. Supply a copy of the order to both the parties free of cost. Make necessary entries in TR.' 3. This order passed by the Family Court is extremely disturbing. After having noted that the husband is receiving net salary of Rs.50,812/- every month the Family Court thought that wife should receive a partly sum of Rs.3,000/- per month out of the salary of the husband for her maintenance. This defies logic and every possible judicial canon in the sphere of awarding maintenance, be it final or interim to a wife who is unable to maintain herself.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.