JUDGMENT AND ORDER :

1. Heard Mr. R. Dutta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Ms. R. Purakayastha, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

2. The respondents filed a petition under Section 125 of the Cr. P.C. as the petitioner refused to maintain them when admittedly they are living separately from the petitioner. The said petition being Crl. Misc. No. (125)-56 of 2014 has been allowed by the judgment and order dated 23.11.2015, directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 3,000/- to the respondent No. 1, Smt. Sucharita Chakraborty (Paul), wife of the petitioner and a further sum of Rs. 2,000/- to Smt. Ankita Paul, daughter of the petitioner. It has been further directed that such maintenance allowance shall be remitted to the respondents within 7th day of every English calendar month. It has been provided that the arrear maintenance allowance from the date of filing of the petition i.e. 20.09.2014 shall be paid to the respondents with regular monthly maintenance till realization of the arrear maintenance.

3. By this revision petition the said judgment and order dated 23.11.2015 has been challenged by the petitioner. According to the petitioner, he was not given adequate opportunity to represent his case and further that in T.S. (Divorce) 39 of 2012 as instituted by the petitioner herein, the decree of divorce dissolving the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent No. 1 has been allowed by the same Family Court, Kailashahar, Unakoti, Tripura which passed by the impugned order in this proceeding.

4. Mr. Dutta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has further submitted that in the judgment dated 28.09.2015, delivered in T.S. (Divorce) 39 of 2012, the Judge, Family Court, Kailashahar, Unakoti has observed:

“So, it can be safely inferred that respondent has deserted her husband-petitioner without any reasonable cause.”

5. Mr. Dutta, learned counsel has contended that the petitioner does not have any reservation to provide maintenance to her daughter, the respondent No. 2. But since the respondent No. 1 has deserted him without any reasonable cause, in view of Section 125 (4) of the Cr. P.C., the respondent No. 1 is not entitled to get any maintenance.

6. Moreover, Mr. Dutta, learned counsel has made a robust attempt to project that the petitioner was not provided adequate opportunity to represent his case before the Family Court, Kailashahar, Unakoti Judicial District.

7. In order to repel the submission made by Mr. Dutta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Ms. R. Purkayastha, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has drawn notice of this Court to the records and has submitted that the petitioner was given three consecutive dates to lay his evidence i.e. 03.07.2015, 27.07.2015 and 17.09.2015. Not only that, the petitioner did not record any appearance on those days not even he did appear in the Court.

8. Ms. Purkayastha, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has further submitted that when the matter was referred by this Court to Mediation, the petitioner preferred not to appear before the appointed mediator in the Mediation Center, High Court of Tripura.

9. Thus, Ms. Purkayastha has contended that from the very conduct of the petitioner, it would be apparent that he had been trying to thwart to the process of law and this Court may not permit that to succeed.

10. Having due regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and also to the records as produced, this Court is of the view that the petitioner has failed to make out any case for interference inasmuch as, the judgment dated 28.09.2015 delivered in T.S. (Divorce) 39 of 2012 was not produced by the petitioner at his own risk in the proceeding and there had been no occasion for the Family Court to appreciate the finding that has been returned by the Family Court, Kailashahar, Unakoti.

11. That apart, Ms. Purkayasth, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document