IN THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA AT AGARTALA
S.G. Chattopadhyay, J.
Kripa Rani Debbarma and Ors. - Appellants
Vs.
Shymal Tripura - Respondent
Crl. Rev. P. 76 of 2019
Decided On : 10-02-2021
Maintenance - Family Dispute - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) - Section 125 - [125 Cr.P.C.]
Fact of the Case:
The wife filed for maintenance allowance under section 125 Cr.P.C. claiming Rs. 15,000 per month for herself and her children. The Family Court denied maintenance to the wife but granted Rs. 3,000 per month for each child. The wife challenged this decision in a criminal revision petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the wife had income from her business and was capable of maintaining herself, thus denying her maintenance allowance. However, the husband was directed to pay Rs. 3,000 per month for each child.
Issues: The main issue was whether the wife was entitled to maintenance allowance under section 125 Cr.P.C. despite having income from her business.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the wife, having income and being capable of maintaining herself, was not entitled to maintenance allowance. However, the husband was still responsible for maintaining his minor children.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and the case was disposed of.
JUDGMENT :
S.G. Chattopadhyay, J.
1. This criminal revision petition has been filed challenging the judgment dated 15.07.2019 delivered in case No. Misc. 516 of 2016 by the Additional Judge, Family Court, Agartala in a proceeding under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C. in short) whereby the respondent (husband hereinafter) was directed to pay Rs. 3,000/- (Rupees three thousand) for each of his daughter Rasmi Tripura and son Rajbir Tripura towards their maintenance. Maintenance allowance having been denied to the wife, she has challenged the impugned judgment of the Family Court in this criminal revision petition.
2. Brief facts of the case are as under:
The wife filed an application under section 125 Cr.P.C. in the Family Court at Agartala claiming maintenance allowance @ Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand) per month for the maintenance of herself and her son and daughter. In her said application, she stated that her marriage with the respondent was solemnized on 13.06.2007 in accordance with the rites and customs of the Hindu marriage and during their marriage her parents gave Rs. 60,000/- (Rupees sixty thousand) in cash to the husband and also gave ornaments, furniture, refrigerator, utensils etc of huge value pursuant to the demand of her husband. After marriage, she accompanied her husband to her matrimonial home and lived a conjugal life with him for about 2 (two) months at Bishramganj in Sepahijala District. Thereafter the husband changed his place of residence from Bishramganj to Agartala for his occupational purpose where the husband and wife started living together in a rented house. A few days thereafter, her husband started subjecting her to torture for dowry. He started extracting money ranging from Rs. 5,000/- to Rs. 10,000/- every month from her father though he was earning not less than Rs. 30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand) per month from private tuition by giving tuition to the students of various English medium schools including Holy Cross School, Auxilium Girls' School, Don Bosco School etc. Apart from his income from private tuition, he also owned huge landed property including a rubber garden on 30 acres' of land in his own name at Sabroom. Despite the differences and disputes between them, the wife conceived and delivered a daughter in 2008. Even after the birth of their daughter the husband continued torturing her. The husband also became alcoholic by that time. When they were living in a rented house at Agartala in 2012, the husband developed illicit relationship with their maid servant from November 2015. On a day in the month of January, 2016, the wife discovered them in compromising position. When she raised protest she was beaten up by her husband. At that time the wife was carrying her second pregnancy. On 26th April, 2016 she left her matrimonial home along with her daughter for her parental home at Bishramganj. On 28th June, 2016 she reported the incidents of atrocities of her husband to police. She also reported the matter to the State Commission for Women. On 18th August, 2016 she gave birth to a son at the District Hospital at Udaipur in Gomati District. The wife had no source of income for maintenance of her children as well as of herself. Her husband on the other hand had a handsome monthly income from private tuition and properties. The wife, therefore, approached the Family court, Agartala claiming Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand) per month for their maintenance.
3. When notice was issued to the husband from the Family court, he appeared in court and filed written objection against the claim of his wife. He admitted his marriage with the petitioner and paternity of the daughter. But he denied the paternity of the son and claimed that when she conceived second time he had no access to her. It was further stated by the husband that during her second pregnancy when she was living with her parents at Bishramganh, the husband sent a messenger to her requesting her
Chaturbhuj Vs. Sita Bai reported in (2008) 2 SCC 316
AI
The main legal point established is that under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a spouse who is capable of maintaining themselves may be denied maintenance allowance, but the responsibi....
The judgment reinforces the principle that a husband has a legal obligation to maintain his wife, reflecting her needs and his financial capacity.
(1) Income of spouse is one of prime considerations for determination of maintenance allowance to wife and children.(2) Husband cannot be permitted to ignore his responsibility for maintaining his di....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the obligation of the husband to provide adequate financial support to his wife and children, considering their reasonable needs and the standard o....
The husband has a statutory duty to maintain his wife and child under Section 125 Cr.P.C., and claims of insufficient income must be substantiated with credible evidence.
The court emphasized the husband’s duty to maintain an adequate standard of living for his ex-wife and child, reflective of his income and their necessities.
The main legal point established is that a wife is not entitled to maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. if she refuses to live with her husband without sufficient reason.
The judgment emphasizes the duty to prevent destitution and vagrancy, the need for evidence to establish income, and the balancing of interests and financial capacity in determining maintenance under....
The judgment establishes the principle that a husband's moral duty to provide maintenance to his wife under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. cannot be absolved by the wife's education or earning capacity, and ....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.