NARAYAN DEB Vs. GOPIKA DATTA CHOWDHURY
HIGH COURT TRIPURA
Gopika Datta Chowdhury
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) This criminal revision petition has been directed against the judgment and order dated 19.12.2018 passed by the Additional Judge, Family Court, Agartala in case No. Misc.77/2016 granting maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs.6,500/- per month to the respondent (wife hereinafter) in a proceeding under Section 125 of the code of Criminal Procedure.
(2.) Brief facts of the case are as under:
The wife filed a petition in the Family Court at Agartala under Section 125 Cr. P. C on 10.02.2016 claiming maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs.15,000/- per month against the respondent (husband hereinafter) stating that after solemnisation of their marriage on 15.12.2015 in accordance with the rites and customs of Hindu marriage, she accompanied her husband to her matrimonial home. Allegedly, during the marriage her parents gave Rs.50,000/- in cash and other valuable articles including TV(LED), Sofa set, golden ornaments including necklace, finger ring, top, wrist watch etc.. Day after she arrived at her matrimonial home, her husband along with his sisters including one sister deserted by her husband started committing torture upon her. A sister of the husband had snatched away her mobile phone and she did not even allow her to talk to her husband. They demanded Rs.2,00,000/- in cash because according to them the husband spent about two lakhs for the purpose of his marriage. She was also subjected to physical assault in her matrimonial home and ultimately she was driven out of her matrimonial home on 27.12.2015 only after 12 days of her marriage. Since then she has been living with her parents. Having no means of livelihood the wife approached the Family Court at Agartala seeking maintenance allowance @ Rs.15,000/- per month which was heard by the learned Additional Judge of the Family Court and ultimately Rs.6,500/- per month has been granted by the Additional Judge, Family Court towards her maintenance allowance with effect from the date of the judgment.
(3.) The husband filed a written objection against the claim of his wife in the Family Court at Agartala contending that all the allegations which were brought by his wife to facilitate her claim for maintenance allowance were untrue. According to the husband, he got a Government job as a Group-D employee in die-in-harness scheme after the death of his father and when he got the job he assured his unmarried brothers and sisters that he would look after their maintenance and as a result of such assurance given by him, his brothers and sisters raised no objection while he was appointed in die-in-harness scheme. According to the husband, immediately after the marriage his wife told him that she would not stay with him because she married him only for extracting maintenance allowance for him. After deserting him voluntarily, she also prosecuted him under Section 498A IPC. According to the husband his wife is a beautician who has a beauty parlour of her own from where she earns Rs.10,000/- per month. She, therefore, does not need any support from her husband. The husband also expressed his willingness to resume conjugal life with his wife.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.