Partly allowed

Sumanta Roy Acharjee v. Saraswati Acharjee and Anr.

Tripura HC18 Sept 2017Crl.Rev.P./100/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision petition challenging a family court order awarding Rs. 8,000 maintenance, the high court reduced the amount to Rs. 6,500 per month due to insufficient evidence of the petitioner's income, while directing arrears to be cleared within three months.

What did the court decide?

Maintenance reduced to Rs. 6,500 per month; arrears to be cleared within three months.

Sumanta Roy Acharjee Vs Saraswati Acharjee and Anr. — Maintenance and Alimony | Tripura HC (2017)

¶1

CRL REV P NO.100 of 2016

¶2

BEFORE

¶3

THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. T. VAIPHEI

¶4

Present: For the petitioner : Mr. R.G. Chakraborty, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. S. Sarkar, Public Prosecutor. Mr. S. Chakraborty, Advocate.

¶5

18.09.2017.

¶6

Heard Mr. RG. Chakraborty, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. Sarkar, the learned Public Prosecutor and Mr. S. Chakraborty, the learned counsel for the respondent No.1.

¶7

This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 08-09-2016 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Agartala, West Tripura in Misc. Case No.382 of 2015 awarding a sum of `8,000/- to the respondent No.1 for her maintenance as well as the maintenance allowance for their daughter.

¶8

The only issue raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the course of hearing is the quantum of the maintenance allowance directed to be paid by the petitioner to the respondent. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, as the petitioner is an unemployed and has no source of livelihood, it is virtually impossible for him to pay such a huge amount for the maintenance of his wife and his daughter. Refuting the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the wife-respondent submits that the petitioner is running a travel agency and other businesses from which he is able to earn not less than `13,000/- per month. I have carefully gone through the impugned judgment. It is unfortunate that the learned Judge, Family Court did not even properly frame an issue on the income of the petitioner and neither is there any definite finding recorded to that effect in the impugned judgment,

¶9

CRL REV P NO.100 of 2016

¶10

Page 1 of 2

¶11

though this is a vital issue for determining the quantum of maintenance allowance to be paid by the petitioner to the private respondent and her daughter.

¶12

Be that as it may, considering the evidence adduced by the parties, I am of the view that the petitioner may not have sufficient income, in the absence of satisfactory evidence in this behalf, to pay the maintenance allowance of 8,000/- per month, the same needs to be reduced to some extent. Therefore, the maintenance allowance awarded by the trial court stands reduced to 6,500/- per month.

¶13

Consequently, the petitioner is directed to pay a sum of ` 6,500 /- per month to the private respondent on or before the 10^th of every succeeding month. The arrear of maintenance due heretofore shall also be cleared by the petitioner within 3(three) months from today. Any amount already paid by the petitioner earlier to the respondent shall be adjusted accordingly. The payment shall be made by the petitioner through the bank account of the petitioner by Net Banking or otherwise through her bank account. The impugned judgment stands modified to the extent and in the manner indicated above. The criminal revision petition stands disposed of accordingly.

¶14

CHIEF JUSTICE

¶15

Dipesh

¶16

CRL REV P NO.100 of 2016

¶17

Page 2 of 2

Sumanta Roy Acharjee v. Saraswati Acharjee and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sumanta Roy Acharjee v. Saraswati Acharjee and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kamala Bibi Vs Prasanta Das and Ors.

Jamuna Sarkar (Debnath) on Behalf of Accused Sri Laxman Debnath Vs the State of Tripura

Sushanta Majumder Vs T.T.A.A.D.C and 6 Ors.

Abhijit Paul Vs Yogendra Tripathi IAS and Ors.

Suvajit Paul Vs Yogendra Tripathi IAS and Ors.

Narayan Hari Vs Raj Kr. Gour and Anr.