Dismissed

Sunil Sinha v. Baby Sinha

Tripura HC15 Dec 2017FA/5/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Honble the Chief Justice and Honble Mr. Justice S. Talapatra dismissed applicant's application seeking interference with Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate's maintenance order due to outstanding lump sum alimony. Court allowed applicant remedy under Section 127 Cr.P.C. and directed Registry to prepare decree now that alimony is paid.

What did the court decide?

Applicant directed to approach Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate under Section 127 of Cr.P.C. Decree preparation directed.

Sunil Sinha Vs Baby Sinha — Maintenance and Alimony | Tripura HC (2017)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA AGARTALA

¶2

IA No.2 of 2019 In FA No.5 of 2013 (D/O)

¶3

For Applicant(s) : Mr. A. Basak, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. P. Majumder, Adv.

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJAY KAROL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. TALAPATRA

¶6

Order

¶7

13/05/2019

¶8

Mr. A. Basak, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-

¶9

applicant has submitted having referred to the copies of the cheques dated 12.07.2018 bearing No.067202 and dated 11.03.2019 bearing No.067203, as annexed with this application, that the payment to the extent of Rs.8,19,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakh Nineteen Thousand) to the respondent.

¶10

Mr. Basak, learned counsel wanted us to interfere with the judgment dated 23.05.2017 delivered by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Kamalpur, Unokoti Judicial District, as he then was, in CRL. Misc.01 of 2017 inasmuch as by the said judgment dated 23.05.2017 the appellant-applicant has been asked to pay the respondent a sum of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand) as maintenance per month, despite the observation made in the judgment dated 15.12.2017 delivered in FA No.5 of 2013. In the said judgment dated 15.12.2017 it has been observed that for having the benefit of the decree of divorce, the appellant shall have to pay a sum of Rs.8.00 lakhs as one-time lump sum alimony to the respondent.

¶11

Mr. Basak, learned counsel has submitted that since the alimony was one-time and that alimony has been paid, the respondent cannot claim any further maintenance. We are not inclined to entertain that relief inasmuch as the said judgment has come into effect only on payment of the entire alimony and hence the appellant-applicant has his remedy before the court of the SubDivisional Judicial Magistrate under Section 127 of the Cr.P.C. in the changed circumstances. The appellant-applicant is therefore at liberty to take recourse at law in the manner as stated.

¶12

So far the payment of the lump sum alimony is concerned there is no dispute, inasmuch as Mr. P. Majumder, learned counsel appearing for the respondent has acknowledged the receipt of such payment for the respondent.

¶13

Mr. Basak, learned counsel has, thereafter, drawn our attention to paragraphs-10 and 11 of the judgment dated 15.12.2017 delivered in FA No.5 of 2013 which read as follows:

¶14

“10. It is accordingly ordered. But it is further clarified that the said judgment would not come into effect unless the said quantum of alimony is paid to the respondent. Such payment shall therefore be made within a period of 6(six) months from today.

¶15

11. This court has taken a conscious decision that a decree be issued only after having the receipt of payment from the appellant. If the payment is not made by the appellant within the said stipulated period, this appeal shall stand dismissed.”

¶16

Since the payment of alimony is complete, the Registry is

¶17

directed to prepare the decree.

¶18

In terms of the above, this application stands disposed of.

¶19

(S. TALAPATRA), J

¶20

(SANJAY KAROL), CJ

¶21

Moumita

Sunil Sinha v. Baby Sinha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunil Sinha v. Baby 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

The Food Corporation of India and Ors. Vs Abhijit Paul

Ms Deep Industries Ltd. Vs the State of Tripura and Ors.

Sunil Ch. Dey and Partner Vs the State of Tripura and Ors.

Costal Project Pvt. Ltd. and Another Vs Gopal Chakraborty and 2 Ors.

Anima Saha and Ors. Vs the State of Tripura and Ors.

Bina Datta Vs Gitesh Ch. Majumder