Page 1 of 5

HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA

AGARTALA

Crl.Rev.P. No.45 of 2023

Smt. Usha Gupta

.........Petitioner(s);

Versus

Sri Bhupesh Chandra Gupta

.........Respondent(s)

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. D.C. Roy, Advocate.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. S. Talapatra, Advocate,

Mr. Samar Das, Advocate.

Crl.Rev.P. No.49 of 2023

Sri Bhupesh Chandra Gupta

.........Petitioner(s);

Versus

Smt. Usha Gupta

.........Respondent(s)

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. S. Talapatra, Advocate,

Mr. Samar Das, Advocate.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. D.C. Roy, Advocate.

HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. APARESH KUMAR SINGH

Order

13/10/2023

Heard learned counsel for both the parties.

2.

Both the revision petitions are directed against the common

impugned judgment dated 06.06.2023 passed by learned Judge, Family Court,

Agartala, West Tripura In Crl. Misc. No.211 of 2020 instituted by the wife for

maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

3.

The wife is the petitioner in Crl.Rev.P. No.45/2023 being

aggrieved by the quantum of maintenance of Rs.4,000/- per month plus

Rs.2,000/- per month, which are the installments of arrears totaling

Rs.1,40,000/- from the date of application i.e. 18.07.2020 payable in the

Savings Bank Account of the petitioner-wife.

Page 2 of 5

Petitioner in Crl.Rev.P. No.49/2023 is the husband aggrieved by

the award of maintenance @ Rs.4,000/- per month.

4.

Parties have been married since 1988. Both the son and the

daughter born out of the marriage are major, and are living independently. The

petitioner-wife has alleged extra marital relationship against her husband. She

has also instituted a CR(Misc.) No.40/2020, which is pending, alleging torture

and assault by the husband. Respondent-husband has alleged that she is living

separately without any sufficient cause.

5.

Respondent-husband is a government employee posted in the

Revenue Section in the office of the District Magistrate & Collector, West

Tripura, Agartala. He has taken a plea that he had purchased several lands out

of loan which has created a liability of about Rs.20 lakhs. The value of the

property is obviously about Rs.20 lakhs. Therefore, out of his meager salary of

Rs.38,000/- as a Group-D employee, he will not be able to meet the quantum of

maintenance awarded by the learned Trial Court. Both the parties have filed

their statement of assets and liabilities in terms of the judgment dated

04.11.2020 of the Apex Court in the case of Rajnesh v. Neha and another

reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324.

6.

I have considered the rival submission of the parties, gone through

the impugned judgment and also the pleadings placed from record. It appears

from the discussion made by the learned Family Court, Agartala in the

impugned judgment that the relevant factors for determination i.e. Point No. I,

II & III have been duly dealt with and addressed after going through the three

plaintiff witnesses adduced by the wife and the documents submitted by her; as

Page 3 of 5

also the three witnesses adduced by the husband and the exhibits such as

original salary certificate, sanction letter of housing loans, Account Statement

showing deductions of EMI and also the certified copies of the complaint

report. The points for determination framed by learned Family court are

reproduced hereunder :

“I.

Whether the petitioner is the legally married wife of the OP?

II.

Whether the OP-husband having sufficient means neglects or refuses

to maintain the petitioner?

III.

Whether the petitioner is entitled to maintenance from the OP and if

so, up to what extent?”

The learned Family Court has held that the marriage is not

disputed by either of the parties and further corroborated by the witnesses

adduced by them. Therefore, that fact need not be proved. So far as Poin