Maintenance orders require a proper reasoned basis that justifies the award, particularly in relation to the parties' financial circumstances.

JUDGMENT

T. Amarnath Goud, J. - This instant criminal revision petition has been filed under Section 19(4) of the FAMILY COURTS ACT , 1984, against the impugned order dated 18.01.2022, passed in Misc. (Int.)210 of 2021, whereby the learned Judge, Family Court, Agartala, West Tripura directed the petitioner to pay interim maintenance allowance amounting to Rs. 12,000/- per month to the respondent No. 1 and Rs. 8,000/- per month to the respondent no. 2

2. The facts of the case in brief, which may be relevant for the present purpose and manifest on the record are that the marriage between the petitioner and respondent No. 1 was solemnized as per Buddhist rites and custom on 07.03.2013. On 01.11.2014, respondent No. 1 gave birth to a male child, namely, Master Prince Chakma, who is impleaded as respondent No. 2. They started to live together in Jirania in a rented house of Renu Debbarma, in Santi Bazar area. After that, the petitioner-husband started to torture respondent No. 1 both mentally and physically for a demand of Rs. 50,000/-. Thereafter, from September 2020, the petitioner-husband started to reside at camp barak and did not provide any maintenance to the petitioner and rent of the house. After three months of non-payment of the rent, in the month of December 2020, the owner of the house evicted respondent No. 1.

3. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent-wife for herself and for respondent No. 2 (minor son) jointly filed a case against the petitioner herein before the learned Judge, Family Court, Agartala, West Tripura, under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 claiming maintenance allowance and the said case was registered and marked as Crl. Misc. 209 of 2021. Along with Crl. Misc. 209 of 2021, another application has been filed claiming interim maintenance for both the respondents and the same has been registered and marked as Crl. Misc.(Int.)210 of 2021.

4. On receipt of the summon, the petitioner appeared before the learned Court below and submitted his written objection, denying all the allegations made in the petitions, and contended that the marriage between the petitioner and respondent No. 1 was solemnized on 07.03.2013. It is further stated that at the time of marriage, the petitioner was serving in CRPF, and he was posted in Nagaland. After the marriage, the petitioner on several occasions requested respondent No. 1 to reside in the house of the petitioner in Chailentga, but respondent No. 1 was not agreeable to stay at Chailengta. The petitioner was transferred to Khumlwng, Tripura in July 2018. As per the desire of respondent No. 1, the petitioner took a personal loan and constructed a Tin roofed building in the parental home of respondent No. 1, and respondent No. 1 stated to reside there. Due to the wedlock, respondent No. 1 gave birth to a male child. He further stated that when the petitioner was out of Tripura, he handed over his ATM card to respondent No. 1. Petitioner further stated that for construction of Tin roofed building, the petitioner took a loan of Rs. 15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakh) from State Bank of India. TLA House Branch, and to repay the loan, he has to pay a monthly installment of Rs. 28,000/- (Rupees Twenty Eight Thousand). It is further stated that his gross salary is around Rs. 51,000/- (Rupees Fifty-one thousand), and his net salary is around Rs. 45,400/- (Rupees Forty-Five Thousand Four Hundred). Out of Rs. 45,400/- he has to pay a monthly installment of the loan at Rs. 28,000/-. Apart from this, Rs. 3,000/- is also deducted per month for LIC policy of their son. Out of Rs. 11,000/- he used to pay Rs. 5,000/- regularly to his wife. It is further stated that he has an old ailing mother, who is fully depende