PANCHAMI CHAKRABORTY Vs. AMIT CHAKRABORTY
HIGH COURT TRIPURA
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) This criminal revision has been directed against the order dated 30.05.2017 passed by the Family Court, West Tripura, Agartala in case No. Miscellaneous 252 of 2015 whereby the claim of the petitioner under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C in short) for maintenance allowance was turned down by the Family Court.
(2.) The facts in brief giving rise to the present petition are as follows:
The petitioner, claiming to be the legally married wife of the respondent filed a petition under section 125 Cr.P.C before the Judge, Family Court at Agartala seeking monthly maintenance allowance of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) from her husband wherein it was alleged by her that she was married to the respondent in the year 1996 and their marriage ceremony was solemnized on 15.03.1996 in accordance with rites and customs of Hindu marriage in the house of the petitioner at Laxmanpara, Amtali in West Tripura. After the marriage, the petitioner accompanied her husband to her in laws' house where she was subjected to torture and various kinds of humiliation by her husband and his relatives. She was told that she was ugly looking and not suitable to the family. She was also tortured for bringing dowry from her parents but she bore their torture in silence in the hope of a better future. Meanwhile, a son was born to them within their wedlock. Few years thereafter, her in-laws had driven her out of her matrimonial home along with her son. The petitioner returned to her parents in the same neighbourhood where from she saw her husband maintaining illicit relationship with another woman who was a near relative of him. The petitioner then filed a complaint at Amtali police station on 06.02.2015. But police did not take any action on her complaint. Then she moved the court seeking maintenance allowance under section 125 Cr.P.C. She asserted in her petition that monthly income of her husband from his travel agency was not less than Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand). This apart, he had other sources of income. The petitioner, therefore, claimed Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) per month from her husband.
(3.) In his written objection filed in the Family Court, the respondent denied his marriage with the petitioner and the paternity of her son. He contended that the petitioner was his next door neighbour who maintained illicit relationship with one Sri Pradip Chakraborty who was a relative of her and the respondent had seen them staying together in the house of the petitioner. According to the respondent, he had no other relationship with the petitioner apart from their neighbourly relationship and the petitioner never lived in his house. He further stated in his written objection that he was always ready to undergo a DNA test for determination of the paternity of her son. According to the respondent, since there was no marriage between him and the petitioner and even there was no live in relationship between them he was not liable to pay maintenance allowance to the petitioner.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.