A wife is entitled to maintenance when separated from her husband for justified reasons, reflecting her dependency, particularly while caring for a child.

JUDGMENT

1. Heard Mr. S. Lodh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. H. K. Bhowmik, learned counsel and Mr. S. Debnath, learned Addl. P.P. apapring for the respondents.

2. This criminal revision petition has been filed under Section-19(4) of the FAMILY COURTS ACT , 1984, against the impugned order dated 06.01.2018 in Misc.530 of 2016 by the learned Judge, Family Court, Agartala, West Tripura, whereby and whereunder, the learned Judge, Family Court, Agartala, West Tripura, did not grant maintenance allowance in favour of the petitioner No.1.

3. The facts which set the criminal law in motion, in short, are that the petitioner No.1 and respondent No.1 are the husband and wife and their marriage was solemnized on 28.07.2008 as per Hindu Rites and Customs in the parental home of petitioner No.1. Due to wedlock, the petitioner No.1 gave birth to a male child i.e. petitioner No.2 on 11.05.2009.

4. The petitioner No.1 for herself and for her minor son i.e. the petitioner No.2 filed an application under Section-125 of Cr. P.C. before the learned Judge, Family Court, Agartala, West Tripura, claiming monthly maintenance allowances against the respondent No.1 and the said case was registered and marked as Misc.530 of 2016.

5. In the application for maintenance, the petitioners alleged that just after the marriage, both the petitioner No.1 and the respondent No.1 started to reside in the official quarter of the respondent No.1 at Khowai. During her stay, she was mentally and physically tortured by the respondent No.1. It is further stated that when the petitioner No.1 was pregnant, she was brutally assaulted by the respondent No.1 and on hearing the same, her family members went there and tried to make understand to the respondent No.1.

6. After few days as she was pregnant, she came to her parental home, and gave birth to a male child (petitioner No.2)( on 11.05.209 at nursing home. After few days of birth of child, the respondent No.1 was transferred from Khowai to Banduar and accordingly, the petitioner No.1 along with petitioner No.2 went there and stayed for a considerable period. During her stay at Banduar, she was again physically and mentally tortured by the respondent No.1. Lastly, in September, 2012, she was brutally assaulted by the respondent No.1 and finding no other alternative, the petitioner No.1 took shelter to her parental home along with her child i.e. the petitioner No.2 and till date she is staying in her parental home.

7. After filing of the maintenance petition, the learned Court below issued notice upon the respondent No.1 and on receipt of the same, he appeared and submitted written objection denying all the allegations. To prove the case, the petitioners adduced 3(three) witnesses including herself and on the other hand the respondent No.1 also adduced 3(three) witnesses including himself.

8. After hearing both the parties, the learned Court below vide impugned judgment and order dated 06.01.2018 granted maintenance allowance to the petitioner No.2 at the rate of Rs.15,000/- per month, but did not grant any maintenance allowance to the petitioner No.1 with the following observations:

Asuming the net salary of the opposite party to be Rs.60,000/- as 7th CPC pay hike, 1/4th i.e. Rs.15,000/- is fixed as maintenance per month for the petitioner No.2 w.e.f. 01.01.2018. Since admittedly, the opposite party pays maintenance and no interim prayer is made, I find no justification to award maintenance from date of filing of this petition. For convenience, the opposite party is directed to pay maintenance Rs.15,000/- to the Bank Account of the petitioner No.1 by 10th day of every English Calendar month. Remittance charges, if any, will be borne by the opposite party.'

9. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 06.01.2018, passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Agartala, West Tripura in Misc. 530 of 2016, the petitioners prefer this present revision petition.

10. In supp