A wife's right to maintenance cannot be revoked solely based on a decree for restitution of conjugal rights without a proper examination of circumstances, including claims of cruelty.

JUDGMENT

1. By means of filing this criminal revision petition, petitioner Smt. Sanjita Roy (Das) has challenged the order dated 10.01.2020 passed by the Additional Judge, Family Court, Agartala in case No. Crl. Misc. 316 of 2019 whereby the learned Additional Judge, Family Court held that the petitioner would not be entitled to any maintenance allowance under section 125 Cr.P.C from her husband in view of her refusal to restore conjugal relationship with her husband pursuant to the judgment and decree dated 19.08.2017 passed by the District Judge, South Tripura, Belonia in T.S.(R.C.R.) 8 of 2015 for restitution of conjugal rights.

2. Heard Mr. P.K. Ghosh, learned advocate representing the petitioners. Also heard Mr. R.G. Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for the respondent husband.

3. The background facts of the case are as under:

Petitioner Smt. Sanjita Roy (Das) filed a petition in the Family Court, Agartala claiming maintenance allowance for herself and her minor son from her husband. Petitioner made some allegations of matrimonial cruelty against her husband. She alleged that after solemnization of her marriage with the respondent on 06.05.2009 she accompanied her husband to his place. Few months thereafter, her respondent husband started committing torture on her for dowry. He demanded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- in cash. Petitioner having failed to meet his demand, he committed physical assault on her on several occasions. However, in the midst of matrimonial discord and differences, she conceived and gave birth to a son. Even after the birth of their child, her respondent husband did not change his attitude towards her. Ultimately, she returned to her parents along with her son to get rid of torture of her husband. Having no means of earning, she claimed maintenance allowance from her husband.

4. Her respondent husband contested the case in the Family Court. He denied all allegations of his wife. It was stated by him in his written statement that apart from filing the petition under section 125 Cr.P.C, his wife also lodged complaint at the State Commission for Women against him. Besides, he prosecuted him under section 498A IPC for which he was arrested and detained in jail. For such detention, he was placed under suspension by his employer. Respondent husband of the petitioner claimed before the Family Court that he was living on subsistence allowance and unable to provide any maintenance allowance to his son and wife. The Family Court however, on appreciation of pleadings and evidence granted a sum of Rs.2,000/- to the petitioner for maintenance of herself and her son by judgment and order dated 01.02.2014 passed in case No. Miscellaneous 140 of 2013.

5. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a petition under section 127 Cr.P.C seeking enhancement of the maintenance allowance on various grounds. She claimed that the circumstances were changed after the maintenance order was passed on 01.02.2014 in Miscellaneous 140 of 2013. According to her, the income of her husband who was government employee had gone up by that time. Moreover, due to price escalation of essential commodities and the increase in living expenses Rs.2,000/- was too inadequate to support herself and her son.

6. The respondent husband of the petitioner filed a written objection against the claim of his wife contending that due to his suspension from service he was living on subsistence allowance of Rs.4,900/- per month. With this meager amount of