The appellate court ruled that even a single incident of domestic violence is sufficient to warrant maintenance, emphasizing the need for both parties to present fresh evidence upon retrial.

JUDGMENT

[1] By means of filing this criminal revision petition, petitioner Sankha Subhra Roy Choudhury has challenged the judgment and order dated 01.04.2021 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Agartala in Criminal Appeal 27 of 2018 whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge remanded the case to the trial court with the following directions:

“17…………………………Having observed thus, I am of the considered opinion that the order so passed by the Ld. Trial Court is arbitrary and cannot sustain. Accordingly, the order dated 09/10/2018 passed by the Trial Court in Case No. CR 43 of 2016 stands set aside with direction to the Ld. Trial Court to record the evidence of the appellant petitioner namely, Sarmistha Banik in regard to the present source of income of the respondent No.1 in determining the quantum of maintenance to be awarded in favour of the Appellant Petitioner. Trial Court is also to accept the documentary evidence in regard to the income of Respondent No.1, if produced and proceed in the way, an application under section 125 of Cr. PC is disposed of and while disposing of the record, it must be borne in mind that acts of domestic violence upon the appellant by the respondents have been held by this Court to have been proved. While passing this direction, this Court is certainly aware of the principles of Natural Justice and as such, sufficient scope be given to the respondent side to lead their evidence in discarding the evidence of the appellant, if any, in regard to the source of income of respondent No.1 and nothing else. In short, evidence in regard to the quantum of maintenance is only to be decided and respondent side cannot furnish any other evidence in regard to any other aspect, as they have themselves shut down their opportunity. Ld. Trial Court is to dispose of the said matter within a period of 3 months from the date of receive of the record, and pass necessary order to pay appropriate monetary relief to the appellant petitioner and pass any other order(s) as would be appropriate thereto.

Accordingly, this appeal stands allowed.……………”

[2] Heard Mr. T.K. Deb, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. J. Majumder, learned counsel appearing for the respondent wife as well as Mr. R. Datta, learned P.P representing the State respondent.

[3] Factual background of the case is as under:

Marriage between petitioner No.1 and respondent No.1 was solemnized on 02.10.2015 and after marriage respondent accompanied her husband to his place where she was maltreated by her petitioner husband. The respondent wife filed a petition under section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate bringing various instances of domestic violence meted out to her by her husband and other in laws. The said petition was heard by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class (Court No.6), Agartala and the same was disposed of by an order dated 09.10.2018 in case No.CR 43 of 2016. In the course of trial, petitioner examined four witnesses including herself to prove the charge of domestic violence against her husband and in laws whereas the respondent brought no witness. The learned trial court rejected the petition and declined to grant any relief under the Domestic Violence Act to the petitioner observing as under:

“7. Regarding the fact of mental torture, I decline to h0ld the facts stated by the aggrieved petitioner as amounting to mental torture. The petitioner stated that the respondent No.1 demanded ATM card and gold necklace and was threatened if the demands were not fulfilled he would contact another marriage. That while the petitioner