HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA AGARTALA
T. Amarnath Goud, J.
Krishna Pada Das - Appellant
Versus
Purnia Barman - Respondent
Crl. Rev. P. 8 of 2022
Decided On : 03-06-2022
JUDGMENT
1. This is an application under Section 19(iv) of the FAMILY COURTS ACT , 1984 against the Judgment and Order dated 24.01.2022 passed by the Learned Family Court, West Tripura, Agartala in Case No. Crl.Misc. 95 of 2020.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner and the respondent were married to each other in the year 2016 following Hindu rites and customs and they were blessed with a male child Master Satyadipon Das on 04.09.2017.
3. It is further submitted that the petitioner filed the petition for Divorce which was registered as TS(DIV) 165 of 2019 and the respondent also had filed a petition under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance for their son Master Satyodipon Das which was registered Crl.Misc 95 of 2020.
4. It is also submitted that the petitioner and the respondent having been staying separately since 04.09.2018 and that the petitioner has been regularly sending money for the upkeep of his son by money order. They petitioner also has been paying the interim maintenance regularly.
5. It is further submitted that after competition of evidence in Crl.Misc. 95 of 2020 and hearing was complete, the Ld Judge of the Family Court by Judgment dated 24.01.2022 disposed of the petition for maintenance vide No. Crl.Misc 95 of 2020 with a direction upon the petitioner herein to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- per month as maintenance for his minor son Master Satyadipon Das w.e.f. 01.01.2022.
6. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the Judgment and Order dated 24.01.2022 passed by the Learned Judge, Family Court, West Tripura in case No. Crl.Misc 95 of 2020 the petitioner herein prefers this revision application before this court.
7. For the sake of brevity the parties hereinafter are referred to as in the cause title of Crl.Misc 95 of 2020.
8. It is apparent from the records that the court below while dealing with case Crl.Misc 95 of 2020 set the following points for determination.
(i) Whether the petitioner is the legally married wife of the OP and out of their wedlock as son was born namely Master Satyadipon Das?
(ii) Whether the OP-husband having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain his son Master Satyadipon Das?
(iii) Whether the minor son is entitled to maintenance allowance from the OP and if so, up to what extent?
9. While dealing with the point no.(i) the court below observed that marriage is not disputed by either party and also the birth of the son Satyadipn Das out of the wedlock the petitioner and the OP. All the witnesses of the petitioner and the OP have also corroborated the fact of marriage of the petitioner and the OP and their son Satyadipon out of their wedlock. Therefore, admitted fact need not be proved.
10. Point No. II and III were taken together for brevity. From the deposition of witnesses, it was observed by the court below that Smt Purnima Barman in her deposition as PW-1 specifically deposed that she has filed the instant maintenance case for her minor son Master Satyadipon Das aged about 4 years who is residing with her and the OP used to pay maintenance @ Rs.2000 per month by post but she was on her work, she could not receive the said money. Howsoever, some arrangement were made for payment but subsequently, the payment became irregular and the OP stopped paying any maintenance for which she has been facing problem to maintain her son alone by her income. She said she is a Govt. Teacher on a fixed scale and it is difficult for her to maintain herself and her son with her salary for which she filed a case for interim maintenance before the Court claiming maintenance for her son R@ Rs.30,000/- per month for his maintenance as well as education expense. She said that her husband is Manager at TSECL and is monthly salary is about Rs.80,000/-.
11. In her cross examination, she admitted that the OP has been paying maintenance as and when required and she has informed the OP about the admission of her son in Bharatiya Vidyabhaban who is studying in Preparatory - I.
12. On the other
Parents have a primary duty to financially support their children, prioritizing child welfare over other familial obligations.
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-divo....
The court affirmed the maintenance amount of Rs.10,500 as just and proper, finding no evidence to support the petitioner's claim for a higher amount amidst financial considerations.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's authority to enhance the maintenance amount under Section 125 Cr.P.C. based on the income of the respondent-husband and the needs of th....
The court affirmed that a spouse's educational qualifications do not disqualify them from receiving maintenance, emphasizing the need for a fair assessment of financial needs and obligations.
Maintenance can be awarded from the date of petition filing when neglect is established; Courts must consider the financial circumstances and needs of dependents.
The court ruled that maintenance must reflect the full financial capacity of the respondent, ensuring adequate support for the petitioner and minor child, and should be awarded from the date of filin....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for the wife and minor child, and the court's discretion to enhance the maintenance base....
The main legal point established is the duty of the husband to maintain his wife, even after divorce, and the importance of providing an opportunity for the husband to present his case.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.