Back
2021 Supreme(Tri) 12
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA AT AGARTALA
S.G. CHATTOPADHYAY, J.
Smt. Pritilata Majumder W/o Shri Krishnapada Majumder – Petitioner
Versus
Shri Krishnapada Majumder S/o Shri Rajbihari Majumder – Respondent
Crl. Rev. Pet. No. 07 of 2019
Decided On : 23-04-2021
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Mr. S. Lodh, Mr. K. Saha.
For the Respondent: Mr. S. Ghosh.
Point of Law: Grant of maintenance to wife - Proof of marriage - strict proof of marriage is not a pre-condition to succeed in a claim for maintenance allowance under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
Headnote:
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 125 - Maintenance allowance - Challenged - To Maintain her and her child whereas her husband is a businessman having a monthly income of not less than - She claimed for herself and for daughter for their maintenance - After case was registered in Family Court, notice was issued to respondent No. 1 - It appears from order dated of Family Court that father of respondent No. 1 received notice on his behalf - Thereafter, several chances were given to respondent to appear and submit his reply in court - Ultimately, Family Court by order dated decided to hear case ex-parte since respondent husband of petitioner did not appear.
Finding of the Court:
Evidence was supported by PW-3, a 70 years old man, unrelated to petitioner who had no reason to tell lie - It was not unknown to him that legal proceedings were initiated by his wife against him because he was arrested in one of the cases instituted by his petitioner wife - It may be by writing or by signs in open court- It is evident that mother [PW-2] and her petitioner daughter [PW-1] came to court on same day for giving deposition in case -It also appears from record that petitioner was a literate person - She was able to read and write - In case of any doubt, court could have asked her to communicate her words in writing - Maintenance allowance is allowed.
Result: Petition is allowed.
ORDER :
1. Petitioner has challenged impugned order dated 09.10.2018 passed by Judge, Family Court, Kailashahar in Crl. Misc. (125)-50 of 2018 declining to grant maintenance allowance to the petitioner in a proceeding under section 125, Cr.P.C. initiated by the petitioner for herself and her minor daughter named Tuli Majumder.
2. The factual context of the case is as under:
Petitioner Smt. Pritilata Majumder who is deaf and dumb filed a petition in the Family court at Kailashahar under section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance allowance for herself and her minor daughter Tuli Majumder alleging that he entered into matrimonial alliance with the respondent on 19.09.2017 at Kumarghat and thereafter when she was carrying pregnancy her husband ousted her from her matrimonial home on 15.10.2017 committing physical and mental torture on her. She was then sheltered by her parents at their home where she gave birth to a daughter. After her daughter was born, she informed her husband. But neither the husband nor any other member of his family came to see the new born baby. It was stated by the petitioner that she does not have any means of livelihood to maintain her and her child whereas her husband is a businessman having a monthly income of not less than Rs. 40,000/-. She, therefore, claimed Rs. 5,000/- for herself and Rs. 3,000/- for the daughter for their maintenance. After the case was registered in the Family Court, notice was issued to respondent No. 1. It appears from the order dated 07.07.2018 of the Family Court that father of respondent No. 1 received notice on his behalf. Thereafter, several chances were given to the respondent to appear and submit his reply in court. Ultimately, the Family Court by order dated 16.08.2018 decided to hear the case ex-parte since respondent husband of the petitioner did not appear.
3. In the course of trial petitioner examined herself as PW-1. Court engaged Shri Krishnapada Bhattacharjee, assistant teacher of deaf and dumb school of Boulapassa to interpret the evidence of the petitioner to the court since the petitioner was deaf and dumb. It has been recorded by the court that as she was unable to understand the sign language, court could not record her evidence even with the aid of the trained interpreter. Showing her mother in the court, she told that her mother was aware of everything of her life.
4. Her mother Smt. Namita Majumder was examined on behalf of the petitioners as PW-2 whose evidence is as under:
“The petitioner, Pritilata Majumder is my daughter. I have four daughters and one son. Pritilata is my second daughter. Prior to her marriage she had love affairs with Krishnapada Majumder S/o Sri. Rajbihari Majumder of West Kanchanbari. Subsequently we accepted their relationship. When she was carrying 8 months pregnancy her relationship with Krishnapada Majumder was established. She showed Krishnapada Majumder then we understand that Krishnapada Majumder was responsible for her pregnancy. Matter was reported to Kumarghat PS. Police arrested Krishnapada then matter was settled. Krishnapada agreed to marry her. Accordingly marriage was solemnized in a temple at Kumarghat. I did not go to the place of marriage. She spent only 10-12 days peacefully at her matrimonial house. Thereafter, we brought my daughter at home for delivery. At the crucial time of delivery her husband did not turn up. Thereafter all along my daughter stayed with us. After 10 to 12 days of her marriage her husband left for unknown destination. I could not say where he has been living now. Now his PCO is being run by his brother. I had no idea of the income of her husband. My daughter filed the present case claiming monthly maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- for her daughter and Rs. 3,000/- for her daughter. I could not produce any documents regarding ownership of the PCO of her husband.”
5. The Family Court by the impugned order declined to grant maintenance allowance to the petitioner and her daughter on the ground that marriage betw
