Family Courts must ensure maintenance awards are just and reasonable, taking into account both parents' financial capabilities and the child's specific needs, to promote the child's welfare post-divorce.

JUDGMENT

1. This criminal revision petition is directed against the order dated 27.07.2021 passed by the Family Court, Agartala in Crl. Misc.603 of 2019 whereby the Family Court has directed the petitioner to pay monthly maintenance allowance of a sum of Rs.10,000/- to his son Arpit Barman w.e.f. 01.10.2019 by depositing the same in the bank account of his mother who is the divorced wife of the petitioner.

2. The fact of the case in brief is that marriage between the petitioner and Smt. Helan Sarkar was dissolved on mutual consent by a judgment dated 28.09.2016 passed by the Family Court, Agartala in Title Suit (Divorce) 351 of 2015 and at the time of granting divorce, permanent alimony payable to the wife of the petitioner was settled at Rs.3,50,000/- which has already been paid by the petitioner to his divorced wife Smt. Helan Sarkar. It was also settled between the parties that their son would live with his mother. Pursuant to the decree of divorce, the spouses were separated from each other and they started living separately. The petitioner husband has, by this time, remarried. On 01.10.2019, divorced wife of the petitioner filed a petition in the Family Court, Agartala alleging that the petitioner (her former husband) was not providing any support for maintenance of their son Arpit Barman. She claimed a monthly sum of Rs.10,000/- for maintenance of their son who was living with his mother in terms of the settlement arrived at the Family Court at the time of granting decree of divorce on mutual consent.

3. In support of her claim, wife (respondent) examined herself as PW-1 and she submitted various documents including the medical prescriptions and cash memos of medicines to show that regular expenditure is being incurred by her for treatment of her son Arpit. She also claimed that her former husband was a constable in Tripura State Rifles and his gross monthly salary was Rs.35,000/-.

4. Having received notice, the present petitioner appeared before the Family Court and took time for filing his written objection. But, on no other subsequent date he appeared before the Family Court. Therefore, the court heard the case ex-parte against him and on appreciation of evidence, granted monthly maintenance of a sum of Rs.10,000/- to his son Arpit Barman and asked the petitioner to pay the maintenance allowance w.e.f. 01.10.2019 i.e. from the date of filing of the petition for maintenance allowance. The impugned order reads as under:

'7. POINT NO.II & III:- For convenience, both the points are taken up together for decision.

During examination, the petitioner as PW-1 specifically deposed that her marriage was solemnized with the OP on 25-10-2005 Hindu rites and customs and out of their wedlock a son named Master Arpit Barman was born. He is a student of Class-VIII. But due to torture of the OP she had to leave her matrimonial home along with her son. Subsequently, on mutual consent this court granted divorce in the year 2016. She further deposed that the OP is a constable serving in TSR and earning around Rs.35,000/- per month. After filing of this case the OP sometimes paid Rs.1500/- for the tuition of Master Arpit Barman but that was not regular. She further deposed that her son will be enrolled in Class-IX very soon and also considering his tuition and other expenditure, she seeks Rs.10000/- as maintenance for him from the OP. She further deposed that her son has also problem of oozing blood from his nose after 3/4 moths regularly. She also consulted various doctors and his treatment is going on.

The OP did not cross-examine PW-1.

8. I