SUPRIYA BHATTACHARJEE AND ORS. Vs. DEBABRATA CHAKRABORTY
LAWS(TRIP)-2021-1-1
HIGH COURT TRIPURA
Decided on January 20,2021

Supriya Bhattacharjee And Ors. Appellant
VERSUS
Debabrata Chakraborty Respondents

JUDGEMENT

S.G.Chattopadhyay,J. - (1.) By means of this criminal revision petition, the petitioner (the wife hereinafter) has challenged the order dated 30.05.2019 of the Additional Judge, Family Court, Agartala passed in case No. Misc. 344 of 2018 whereby the monthly maintenance allowance payable to her has been enhanced from Rs.5000/- to Rs.8000/- declining her request for enhancing the amount from Rs.5000/- to Rs.23,500/- per month.
(2.) The brief facts which have led to the filing of this revision petition are as under: Marriage between the parties was solemnised in accordance with the rites and customs of Hindu marriage on 02/02/2003. After marriage, a daughter was born to them within their wedlock. Few years thereafter, matrimonial dispute developed between them for various reasons and the wife left the company of her husband along with her daughter and started living with her parents. Since the wife had no income and she was thus unable to maintain herself and her daughter, she claimed maintenance allowance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C hereinafter) in the Family Court at Agartala. The Judge, Family Court by his order dated 01.11.2006 allowed her petition and taking into consideration the income of her husband and her needs allowed monthly maintenance allowance of Rs.2200/- to her and Rs.800/- to her daughter. Eager to take back his wife and resume conjugal life, the husband then filed a petition in the Family Court at Agartala for restitution of conjugal rights. The wife contested the suit brought by her husband and ultimately the Family Court, Agartala vide order dated 06.05.2008 decreed the suit and asked the wife to come back to her husband for resumption of conjugal life. There was no response from the side of the wife. Therefore, the husband approached the Family court seeking a decree of divorce on the ground that there was no resumption of cohabitation between them for a period of more than one year after the decree for restitution of conjugal rights was passed by the Court. The wife contested the divorce suit and brought various allegations against her husband including physical torture and extra marital affairs etc. The Family Court, Agartala after hearing the parties and recording their evidence passed a decree of divorce dissolving their marriage under Sections 13(1A)(ii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and while decreeing the suit for divorce the Family court allowed monthly maintenance allowance of Rs.5,000/- to the petitioner and it was ordered that maintenance allowance of Rs.3,000/- already granted to her in the past proceeding under Section 125 Cr. P.C shall be adjusted towards the maintenance allowance of Rs.5,000/- and finally the wife would get Rs.5,000/- per month. The said decree of divorce was passed on 16.09.2010. Circumstances rapidly changed thereafter. The salary of the husband rose after he became Headmaster of a Higher Secondary school. As a result of escalation in the price of essential goods and increase in the educational expenses of her daughter and for other reasons the wife required more amount of maintenance allowance to support herself and her daughter as she had no other source of income. Therefore, she filed a petition in the Family Court in the year 2018 for raising her monthly maintenance allowance from Rs.5,000/- to Rs.23,500/- per month. The husband contested the case. The Family Court after hearing the parties allowed the petition of the wife raising her maintenance allowance from Rs.5,000/- to Rs.8,000/- vide order dated 30.05.2019. Aggrieved with this order, the wife has approached this Court by means of this criminal revision petition seeking enhancement of the amount of her maintenance allowance to Rs.23,500/- per month.
(3.) In the course of the proceeding, the husband submitted written objection on 10.12.2020. In his written objection, he has claimed that the wife is responsible for the termination of their marital relationship. Repeated efforts from the side of the husband for restoration of their relationship did not work because of the adamant attitude of the wife and according to the husband, his divorced wife (petitioner) is an earning lady who is quite capable of supporting herself and more over he is still willing to take back his divorced wife and daughter and therefore, the petition, according to him is devoid of merit and liable to be rejected.;


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