Back
T. AMARNATH GOUD
Md. Ataur Rahaman – Appellant
Versus
Neharun Neecha – Respondent
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 responden
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.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
