Allowed

Partha Debbarma v. Puja Majumder

Tripura HC16 Aug 2017Crl.Rev.P./50/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Chief Justice T. Vaiphei allowed the criminal revision petition. Considering the petitioner's net income of Rs. 31,096, the interim maintenance granted by the Family Court was reduced from Rs. 10,000 to Rs. 7,000 per month pending the trial. The conversion rate was unspecified.

What did the court decide?

Interim maintenance reduced from Rs. 10,000 to Rs. 7,000 per month, payable with effect from 01-07-2017.

Partha Debbarma Vs Puja Majumder — Maintenance and Alimony | Tripura HC (2017)

¶1

CRL REV P NO.50 of 2017

¶2

B E F O R E

¶3

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

¶4

Present : For the petitioner : Mr. J. Bhattacharjee, Advocate. Mr. T.K. Deb, Advocate.

¶5

For the respondent : None.

¶6

16.08.2017

¶7

Heard Mr. J. Bhattacharjee, the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶8

This criminal revision petition is directed against the order dated 12-07-2017 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Agartala, West Tripura in Misc.(Interim) No.166 of 2016 arising out of Misc. No.165 of 2017 granting an interim maintenance of `10,000/- to the respondent.

¶9

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the net income he draws after making deduction of obligatory payments comes to 31,096/ and as such, the grant of 10,000/- to the respondent per month for her maintenance is on the higher side and can ruin him. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is confident of proving in the course of trial that the respondent is also working as a nurse in a private clinic namely, Medica Super Specialty Hospital Information Centre, situated at Colonel Chowmuhani, Agartala, and is earning not less than 7,000/- per month. The learned counsel for the petitioner draws my attention to the Pay Slip issued by the Executive Engineer, Udaipur Division (PWD) dated 06-07-2017 indicating therein the net salary of the petitioner as 31,096/- per month after deducting GPF contribution, Professional Tax, Group Insurance etc. and submits that if the petitioner is to pay `10,000/- per month, then there will be virtually nothing

¶10

CRL REV P NO.50 of 2017 Page 1 of 2

¶11

left for him. The Pay Slip produced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is hereby marked X and is hereby made a part of the record. Normally notice has to be issued to the respondent and the case should not be disposed of without hearing the respondent. However, considering the Pay Slip produced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, no useful purpose will be served by issuing notice to the respondent. In my opinion, instead of 10,000/- per month, the interim maintenance allowance payable to the respondent should be reduced to 7,000/- per month.

¶12

Consequently, the petitioner is directed to pay a sum of `7,000/- per month to the respondent every month as an interim maintenance allowance i.e. within the 10^th of every succeeding month with effect from 01-07-2017 pending disposal of the connected Misc. Case No.165 of 2017. The impugned order dated 12-07-2017 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Agartala, West Tripura is modified to the extent indicated above. It is, however, made clear that nothing stated in the foregoing shall be construed as final observation on the merit of the case, which is yet to be decided by the trial court. The trial court is not precluded from increasing/decreasing/canceling the interim maintenance allowance after hearing the parties on merit.

¶13

The revision petition is disposed of in the admission stage without issuing notice to the respondent.

¶14

CHIEF JUSTICE

¶15

Dipesh

¶16

CRL REV P NO.50 of 2017 Page 2 of 2

Partha Debbarma v. Puja Majumder

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Partha Debbarma v. Puja Majumder

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

Adhir Ch. Das and Anr. Vs the State of Tripura and Ors.

Rajesh Debnath Vs State of Tripura

Rakesh Saha Vs State of Tripura and 45 Ors.

Tapan Kr. Bhowmik Vs Ms Chapala Bircks Industry

Kanchanthung Halam and Anr. Vs Mallika Das and Ors.

Renu Bala Das - Legal Heirs of Deceased Vs Tutan DEBand Anr.