Partly allowed

Bikash Das v. Sikha Rani Das

Tripura HC30 Oct 2017Crl.Rev.P./24/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court considered a revision petition challenging the Family Court's award of maintenance. Holding no interference necessary regarding the respondent's entitlement, the court modified the quantum of monthly maintenance to Rs. 1,500 based on the petitioner's financial inability to pay Rs. 2,000.

What did the court decide?

Monthly maintenance allowance reduced from Rs. 2,000 to Rs. 1,500; arrear maintenance to be paid from 10th December 2017.

Noting by Officer or Serial Date Advocate No	Office notes, reports, orders or Proceedings with signature
	Crl. Rev. P. No.24 of 2017 Sri Bikash Das, son of late Kali Mohan Das, resident of West Rangamati, Amarpur, PO & PS – Birganj, Amarpur, Gomati District, Tripura ………………… Petitioner – Vs – Smt. Shikha Rani Das, wife of Sri Bikash Das, daughter of Sri Brajendra Das, resident of Baishnabirchar, P.S. Kakraban, Udaipur, Gomati District, Tripura …..………….Respondent
30.10.	For the petitioner:Mr. K. Roy, Advocate For the respondent:Mr. H. Debbarma, Adv. B E F O R E THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. TALAPATRA 2017 Heard Mr. K. Roy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. H. Debbarma, learned legal aid counsel appearing for the respondent. By means of this petition filed under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, the petitioner has challenged the judgment and order dated 30.03.2017 delivered in Cr.Misc. FC/UDP/132/2016 by the Judge, Family Court, Udaipur, Gomati, Tripura.

Noting by Officer or Serial Date
Advocate No

Office notes, reports, orders or
Proceedings with signature

Crl. Rev. P. No.24 of 2017
Sri Bikash Das,
son of late Kali Mohan Das,
resident of West Rangamati, Amarpur,
PO & PS – Birganj, Amarpur,
Gomati District, Tripura
………………… Petitioner
– Vs –
Smt. Shikha Rani Das,
wife of Sri Bikash Das,
daughter of Sri Brajendra Das,
resident of Baishnabirchar,
P.S. Kakraban, Udaipur,
Gomati District, Tripura
…..………….Respondent

30.10.

For the petitioner**:Mr. K. Roy, Advocate
For the respondent:**Mr. H. Debbarma, Adv.

B E F O R E
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. TALAPATRA
2017
Heard Mr. K. Roy, learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr.
H. Debbarma, learned legal aid counsel
appearing for the respondent.
By means of this petition filed
under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts
Act, 1984, the petitioner has challenged
the judgment and order dated 30.03.2017
delivered in Cr.Misc. FC/UDP/132/2016 by
the Judge, Family Court, Udaipur, Gomati,
Tripura.

Noting by Officer or Serial Date Advocate No	Office notes, reports, orders or Proceedings with signature
	At the outset, Mr. H. Debbarma learned legal aid counsel has pointed out
	that by mistake the petitioner, the respondent herein, in her petition filed under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. has not mentioned that she is a divorcee. But Mr. K. Roy, learned counsel has not raised any objection on that aspect of the matter. Apart that, within the definition of ‘wife’ as provided under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., the divorced wife is included. Mr. Roy, learned counsel has made a focused submission that the petitioner has no earning at all and casually he is working as a tailor. He does not have sufficient means to maintain the petitioner.
	According to Mr. Roy, learned counsel
	appearing for the petitioner, by the
	impugned judgment and order dated
	30.03.2017 the Judge, Family Court,
	Udaipur, Gomati has not taken care of that
	aspect of the matter and as a result, the
	petitioner has been directed to pay
	Rs.2,000/- per month to the respondent.
	The Judge, Family Court by the
	impugned judgment and order dated
	30.03.2017, on appreciation of the
	documentary evidence has assessed the

Noting by Officer or Serial Date
Advocate No

Office notes, reports, orders or
Proceedings with signature

At the outset, Mr. H. Debbarma
learned legal aid counsel has pointed out

that
by
mistake
the
petitioner,
the
respondent herein, in her petition filed
under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. has not
mentioned that she is a divorcee. But Mr.
K. Roy, learned counsel has not raised any
objection on that aspect of the matter.
Apart that, within the definition of ‘wife’ as
provided under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C.,
the divorced wife is included.
Mr. Roy, learned counsel has made
a focused submission that the petitioner
has no earning at all and casually he is
working as a tailor. He does not have
sufficient means to maintain the petitioner.

According to Mr. Roy, learned counsel

appearing
for
the
petitioner,
by
the

impugned
judgment
and
order
dated

30.03.2017
the
Judge,
Family
Court,

Udaipur, Gomati has not taken care of that

aspect of the matter and as a result, the

petitioner
has
been
directed
to
pay

Rs.2,000/- per month to the respondent.

The Judge, Family Court by the

impugned
judgment
and
order
dated

30.03.2017,
on
appreciation
of
the

documentary evidence has assessed the

Noting by Officer or Serial Date Advocate No	Office notes, reports, orders or Proceedings with signature
	monthly income of the petitioner at Rs.10,000/- per month which according to Mr. Roy, learned counsel is not based on any documentary evidence. Mr. Roy, learned counsel has submitted that no documentary evidence has been admitted in the evidence and as such there cannot
	be any question of reliance of any documentary evidence. Apparent it is that the Judge, Family Court has made such assessment on the basis of the oral testimonies of PWs.1, 2 and 3. Thus, the assessment in respect of income emanated from the subject assessment of those witnesses. Be that as it may, on having regard to the evidence as well as the respective averments of the petitioner and the
	respondent as filed before the Judge, Family Court, Udaipur, Gomati, this court is of the view that no interference is at all required so far the findings regarding the
	entitlement of the respondent to the
	monthly maintenance allowance is
	concerned. However, having regard to the financial status of the petitioner, this court
	is inclined to reduce the maintenance allowance from Rs.2,000/- to Rs.1,500/-

Noting by Officer or Serial Date
Advocate No

Office notes, reports, orders or
Proceedings with signature

monthly income of the petitioner
at
Rs.10,000/- per month which according to
Mr. Roy, learned counsel is not based on
any
documentary
evidence.
Mr.
Roy,
learned counsel has submitted that no
documentary evidence has been admitted
in the evidence and as such there cannot

be any question of
reliance
of any
documentary evidence. Apparent it is that
the Judge, Family Court has made such
assessment on the basis of the oral
testimonies of PWs.1, 2 and 3. Thus, the
assessment in respect of income emanated
from the subject assessment of those
witnesses.
Be that as it may, on having regard
to the evidence as well as the respective
averments of the petitioner and the

respondent as filed before the Judge,
Family Court, Udaipur, Gomati, this court
is of the view that no interference is at all
required so far the findings regarding the

entitlement of the respondent to the

monthly
maintenance
allowance
is

concerned. However, having regard to the
financial status of the petitioner, this court

is inclined to reduce the maintenance
allowance from Rs.2,000/- to Rs.1,500/-

Noting by Officer or
Advocate

Serial Date
No

Office notes, reports, orders or
Proceedings with signature

per month. The petitioner shall pay the
maintenance allowance at that rate along
with the arrear maintenance allowance by

10^th
of
December,
2017
else
the

respondent shall be entitled to take

appropriate action as provided by law.
Needless to say that the petitioner shall
continue to pay the monthly maintenance
allowance regularly by the 10^thday of
every English calendar month by money
order to the respondent. The charge of
money order shall also be borne by the
petitioner. However, if the respondent
provides the bank account details to the
petitioner, he may also remit the same
amount by transfer to the account of the
respondent.
In terms of the modification made
in the impugned judgment and order dated
30.03.2017, this petition is allowed partly.
LCRs be returned without delay.
A copy of the order be furnished to
the learned counsel for the parties for
doing their needful.

JUDGE

Bikash Das v. Sikha Rani Das

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bikash Das v. Sikha Rani Das

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

Pulakesh Debbarma and Ors. Vs the State of Tripura and Ors.

Narayan Debbarma Vs the State of Tripura and 2 Ors.

Ratan Sarkar Vs the State of Tripura and Ors.

Bhabani Chakraborty and Anr. Vs A.M.C. and Ors.

Upendra Debnath Vs Logitic Transport of India

Sabita Debbarma Vs the State of Tripura and Ors.