HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA AGARTALA
T. Amarnath Goud, J.
Md. Ataur Rahaman - Appellant
Versus
Neharun Neecha & Ors. - Respondents
Crl. Rev. P. 33 of 2022
Decided On : 22-08-2022
JUDGMENT
1. Heard Mr. K. Roy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Ms. R. Purakayastha, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
2. This is a criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Cr.P.C. against the impugned judgment and order dated 06.09.2021 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, North Tripura, Dharmanagar in Criminal Revision Petition 11 of 2019 whereby the learned Sessions Judge, North Tripura, Dharmanagar interfered with the Judgment and order dated 27.08.2019 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Dharmanagar, North Tripura in Case No.03 of 2017 and enhanced the maintenance allowance from Rs.2,500 each to Rs.7,500/- each.
3. The brief fact is that the petitioner and the respondent No.1 are the husband and wife and respondent No.2 is their daughter aged about 33 years of age. The respondents No.1 and 2 jointly filed an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. and the same was registered and marked as Misc.01 of 2015. After hearing the parties, the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Dharmanagar, North Tripura vide judgment and order dated 18.11.2015 granted the maintenance in favour of the respondents No.1 and 2 @ Rs.1,500/- each and the petitioner was directed to pay the same. Thereafter, the respondents No.1 and 2 jointly filed another application under Section 127 of the Cr.P.C. for enhancement of the maintenance allowance and the same was registered and marked as Misc.03 of 2017.
4. To prove the case on behalf of the respondents, two witnesses were examined and on the other hand, the petitioner adduced two witnesses. After hearing both the sides, the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Dharmanagar, North Tripura vide Judgment and Order dated 27.08.2019 enhanced the maintenance from Rs.1,500/- each to Rs.2,500/- each.
5. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order dated 27.08.2019, passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Dharmanagar, North Tripura in Case No. Misc.03 of 2017 the respondents No.1 and 2 jointly filed a revision petition before the Sessions Judge, Dharmanagar, North Tripura and the same was registered and marked as Criminal Revision No.11 of 2019. On receipt of the summon, the petitioner appeared before the Sessions Judge and filed a detailed written objection contending inter alia that he would retire from service on 31st January, 2021. In the written objection he has also contended that his gross salary is about Rs.60,000/- and after deduction he is getting Rs.10,725/-. In the objection he has clearly stated that by taking House Building Loan, he constructed one building on his purchased land, but he was driven out by his wife and his children from that constructed home. He has also stated that as per demand of his son, he has also purchased a Motor Bike after taking loan from the Bank.
6. After hearing the parties, the Sessions Judge vide judgment and order dated 06.09.2021 allowed the Revision Petition and modified the judgment and order dated 27.08.2019 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Dharmanagar, North Tripura by enhancing the maintenance allowance of Rs.2,500 each to Rs.7,500/- each.
7. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 06.09.2021 passed by the Sessions Judge, Dharmanagar, North Tripura in Criminal Revision Petition No.11 of 2019 the petitioner has preferred the instant criminal revision petition.
8. Mr. K. Roy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has retired on March, 2022 and his basic salary comes around Rs.32,250/-. He has submitted that the court below has committed serious error in allowing maintenance allowance in favour of the respondent No.2 who is the major daughter of the petitioner and at present, she is aged about 33 years. As per Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. only minor children are entitled to maintenance. According to him, the Court below has failed to appreciate the same and allowed mai
Maintenance under the Cr.P.C. is extendable to adult daughters until marriage, ensuring their financial support despite age.
three children are under the custody of their mother/ petitioner. Since the petitioner is a guardian of their children she has to maintain the education and marriage of the children etc. Further, the....
The plea raised in a Revision Petition should have been raised before the Trial Court and cannot be raised for the first time in a Revision Petition.
The court determined that a spouse's maintenance allowance can be enhanced based on the applicant's affordability and living conditions of the respondent.
Point of law - As per Section, 125 of Cr.P.C, only minor child is entitled to get maintenance amount. Therefore, regarding second respondent, the revision petitioner need not to pay maintenance amoun....
The court affirmed that the maintenance amount must reflect current living standards, considering the economic situation and obligations of an able-bodied husband to support his family.
The court emphasized the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction, stating it cannot re-evaluate evidence already considered by the lower court.
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.