Allowed

Rajib Sinha v. Chamaki Sinha

Tripura HC9 Aug 2017Crl.Rev.P./15/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a recall petition challenging a Family Court order on maintenance. The Court set aside the order passed without an opportunity for the petitioner to file written objections and remitted the case for fresh determination by the lower court.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 18.06.2015 set aside; case remitted to Family Court for fresh determination within six months.

Rajib Sinha Vs Chamaki Sinha — Maintenance and Alimony | Tripura HC (2017)

¶1

Noting by Officer or Advocate	Serial No.	Date	Office notes, reports, orders or proceedings With signature
			CRL REV P 15 of 2017 B E F O R E THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.TALAPATRA 09.08.2017 Heard Mr. N. Das, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Despite due notice from this court, the respondent preferred not to enter in the appearance, she has not even asked for engagement of any Legal Aid counsel to this court though in the notice it was clearly mentioned that if she is not in a position to engage any counsel for any reason, she may engage a Legal Aid counsel. By means of this petition filed under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, the order dated 18.06.2015 has been challenged on the sole ground that the petitioner was not given any opportunity to file the written objection against the prayer for maintenance. Mr. Das, learned counsel has stoutly submitted that on the very day meaning the day of the service return, the case has been disposed of and nothing has been recorded by the Family Judge why the petitioner has been denied the said opportunity. Only it is recorded that at the initiative of the Amicus Curiae engaged by the court, a settlement has been reached that the petitioner shall pay Rs.4,000/- per month alongwith another sum of Rs. 1,000/- as the maintenance to the child namely Smt. Rimsha Sinha. Thus the total maintenance allowance as determined is Rs.5,000/-.

¶2

After scrutinizing the records, this court does not find any memorandum of settlement reducing the conditions of payment of maintenance.

¶3

Mr. Das, learned counsel has categorically submitted that the petitioner did never agree to such terms of settlement. It was wholly done behind his back and he was never a party to the settlement. As such, there was no settlement. Be that as it may, the way the court has recorded the settlement is highly improper. If in the Family Court any settlement is arrived at between the parties, that should be reduced in a memorandum of settlement and that settlement shall be duly signed by the parties. That memorandum shall be kept in the record and only based on such memorandum of settlement the appropriate order may be passed by the court, otherwise such settlement always shall be prone to dispute which the Family court should not allow to happen.

¶4

Noting by Officer or Advocate	Serial No.	Date	Office notes, reports, orders or proceedings With signature
			Having observed thus, this court is of the opinion that the impugned order dated 18.06.2015 is liable to be set aside and accordingly the same is set aside. However, in the fitness of the things, the case shall be remitted back to the Family Court, Kailasahar, Unakoti Judicial District for fresh determination of the maintenance allowance after affording the petitioner opportunity of filing his written objection, if any. This petition therefore is allowed to the extent as indicated above. Send down the records forthwith. Having received the records, the Judge, Family Court, Kailasahar, Unakoti Judicial District shall issue fresh notice on the petitioner and the opposite party for their appearance. As the matter requires expeditious disposal, there shall be an initiative by the Judge, Family Court, Kailasahar, Unakoti Judicial District to complete the entire proceeding as expeditiously as possible but by any rate not beyond 6(six) months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. JUDGE

¶5

Saikat

Rajib Sinha v. Chamaki Sinha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajib Sinha v. Chamaki Sinha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hena Rani Das Vs the State of Tripura and Ors.

Priyatosh Das Chowdhury Vs the State of Tripura and Ors.

Bidhan Ch Das Vs the State of Tripura and Ors.

Rikta Pal Sarkar Vs Milan Pal

Gosai Mohan Jamatia Vs the State of Tripura and Ors.

Khagendra Ch. Deb Vs the State of Tripura and Ors.