Court upheld the Family Court's order for maintenance, asserting that relationship status cannot be reassessed during execution proceedings while allowing the petitioner to reclaim if identity fraud is proven.

JUDGMENT

T. Amarnath Goud, J. - This instant criminal revision petition has been filed under Section 301 read with Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for setting aside/quashing the impugned order dated 13.01.2022 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Udaipur, Gomati Tripura in connection with Case No. Criminal Misc. (Ex) 25/2020 (arising out of Criminal Revision 64/2018) and (arising out of Criminal Revision Petition No. 73/2019 of the Hon'ble High Court of Tripura, Agartala) directing the opposite party-husband-respondent to pay a sum of Rs. 2,500/-(Rupees Two Thousand Five hundred) only per month to the present wife-respondent herein as monthly maintenance allowance w.e.f. 01.02.2020 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Tripura in connection with Case No. Criminal Revision Petition No. 73/2019.

2. Heard Mr. I. Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Ms. R. Purukayastha, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent herein claiming that she has a relationship with the petitioner gave birth to a male child and further she made a claim for maintenance. Accordingly, during the course of the Judicial proceeding, her request has been accepted and a sum of Rs. 2,500/- has been awarded towards maintenance. Further the respondent has preferred and execution proceeding case No. Criminal Misc.(Ex)25/2021 in the Court of learned Judge, Family Court, Udaipur, Gomati Tripura.

4. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has preferred this instant revision petition.

5. During the course of the argument, Mr. Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has represented before this Court that there is no relationship between the petitioner and the respondent-lady. They are not married. Further, the respondent-lady is already a married woman and subsequently, she has eloped with some other person and she is not entitled to any maintenance.

6. This Court has no hesitation to reject the arguments of the petitioner-counsel since at the stage of the pending of the execution proceeding, appreciation of the factual position as well as reconsideration of the passing of the maintenance and with regard to the relationship status cannot be gone into.

7. Mrs. Purukayastha, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-lady submits that since February 2020, the petitioner is in due and he is supposed the pay the amount.

8. Further Mr. Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits before this Court that if the amount is deposited and the respondent-lady flew away with the money under the wrong identity, it becomes for him to recover the same from her.

9. While upholding the order of the Court in awarding the maintenance or Rs. 2,500/- per month as well as without interfering with the execution proceedings, which are pending before the Court below, this Court only directs that the petitioner shall deposit the maintenance amounts as directed by learned Family Court, Udaipur, District, Tripura in Cr.Misc(Exe)-25 of 2020. On depositing the said amount, the respondent-lady is at liberty to withdraw the same from the Court by showing her identity proof. This Court has not interfered with the earlier Judicial orders nor with the execution proceedings. This Court by way of this present revision petition has only made an arrangement for depositing the amounts by petitioner and withdrawal to be made by the respondent-lady under proper identity. The respondent lady shall file an indemnity to the effect before the Executive Court that in the event if the petitioner succeeds in his declaration that respondent-lady is not his wife, the petitioner is at liberty to proceed agai