The judgment reinforces the principle that a husband has a legal obligation to maintain his wife, reflecting her needs and his financial capacity.

JUDGMENT & ORDER

Biswajit Palit, J. - This Criminal Revision Petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C is filed for setting aside/quashing the judgment and order dated 15.06.2023 passed by Learned Additional Judge, Family Court, West Tripura, Agartala in connection with Crl. Misc 128 of 2021.

2. Heard Learned Counsel Mr. K. Datta for the petitioner. At the time of hearing, Learned Counsel for the respondent is found to be absent.

3. Before conclusion of the case, let us see the subject matter of the proceeding before the Learned Court below. The OP wife Smt. Namita Sarkar submitted an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C read with Section 7 of the Family Courts Act for granting her maintenance allowance from the petitioner-husband.

4. It was the case of the OP-wife that her marriage was solemnized with the petitioner-husband in the house of her brother on 02.12.2018 according to Hindu Marriage Rites and Customs. In the marriage, her brother gave different articles like wooden cot, freeze, Tea-Table, Alna, Sofa Set, Showcase, etc along with gold made ornaments like Earring, Necklace, and cash of Rs. 32,000/- to the petitioner-husband as per the demand. But within one month of marriage, the petitioner-husband demanded Rs. 2,00,000/- from the OP-wife and for that she was subjected to torture by her husband and other family members. After one and half month of their marriage, the OP-wife found that the petitioner-husband and his elder sister-inlaw were in compromising situation in the room of her elder sister-in-law. Seeing the same, she raised objection and on this issue, she was also assaulted by the petitioner-husband. On this account, so many meetings were held to resolve the issue and in the meeting, the petitioner-husband admitted that he would not continue such act in future and also assured not to cause any further cruelty upon the OP-wife. The last meeting was held on 10.10.2019 thereafter on 15.10.2019 in the morning, the petitioner-husband along with his elder sister-in-law, elder brother, Sri Jitendra Namasudra and his mother conjointly assaulted the OP-wife by fist and blows. When the OP-wife to save her life tried to took shelter in the residence of one Sushen Namasudra but said Sushen Namasudra was not available that time. The petitioner-husband dragged her by catching her hair and severely tortured her and she was thrown in a longa on that day. After that she was found herself in bed at Kulai Hospital when after getting the information, the brother of the OP-wife along with others came and in the Hospital, she was admitted therein with effect from 15.10.2019 to 18.10.2019 and on that issue, one case was registered at Kachu Cherra PS vide Kachu Cherra PS case No.10 of 2019 under Section 325/498-A/34 of IPC. After discharge from the Hospital, the OP-wife went to her matrimonial home along with her brother for staying therein but that time they did not accept her until the demand of Rs. 2,00,000/- is fulfilled and since 18.10.2019, the OP-wife was staying in the residence of her brother.

5. The OP-wife further took the plea that her husband from that time did not pay any maintenance to her and so she claimed Rs. 10,000/- per month as maintenance allowance from her husband i.e. the present petitioner. It was further asserted that the petitioner-husband is the owner of a rubber plantation as well as he has got one auto-rickshaw and used to earn Rs. 50,000/- per month from his sources and used to lead luxury life while the OP wife was passing her days with severe hardships.

6. Initially, before the Court of Learned Additional Family Judge, a process of reconciliation of the matter was taken up but that could not be settled. However, the petitioner-husband as OP contested the case by filing one written objection denying all the assertions of his wife in her claim petition. It was further asserted that the OP-wife was not willing to discharge her marital duties and the petitioner-husband and his mother were r