##PAGE1##

2026:THC:620-DB

TRHC010010832025

HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA

AGARTALA

F.A. 5/2025

Sri Manindra Das, son of late Thakurmani Das, resident of

Industric, Kumarghat, P.O.,P.S.,Sub-Division- Kumarghat,

District- Unakoti Tripura, PIN-799064;

…. Appellant

Versus

1. Smt. Riya Harijan (Das), daughter of Smt. Gita Harijan, wife

of late Amit Das, C/o Rita Shil, of Ratikroy, Sub-Division-

Kumarghat, District- Unakoti, Tripura.

2. Ahana Das, daughter of late Amit Das, C/o. Rita Shil of

Fatikroy, Sub-Division- Kumarghat, District- Unakoti Tripura.

(Both the Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 are minors, they will be

represented by their mother and grand-mother, Smt. Gita

Harijan, W/o. Sukanta Harijan, C/o. Rita Shil of Fatikroy,

Gandhibari Bazar, P.O. and P.S. Fatikroy, Sub-Division-

Kumarghat, District- Unakoti Tripura, PIN-799030..

----Respondent

For the Appellant(s) : Mr. H. Deb, Advocate

For the Respondent(s) : Ms. A. Debbarma, Advocate

Date of hearing & delivery

of Judgment & Order : 13.05.2026

Whether fit for reporting : Yes / No

BEFORE

HON’BLE JUSTICE DR. T. AMARNATH GOUD

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. DATTA PURKAYASTHA

JUDGMENT & ORDER(ORAL)

(Dr.T.Amarnath Goud, J

Heard Mr. H. Deb, learned counsel appearing for the

appellant. Also heard Ms. A. Debbarma, learned counsel appearing

for the respondent.

2. The appellant, by means of filing the present appeal

have challenged the order dated 21.02.2025, passed by the

learned Judge, Family Court, Kailasahar, Unakoti, in connection

with case No. Civil Misc. 14 of 2023, whereby the appellant had

Page 2

been directed to pay Rs.700/- per month to the respondent no.1

and Rs.500/- per month to respondent no.2 as maintenance.

3. Precisely stated, the respondent no.1 eloped with one

Amit Das, son of the appellant herein, and subsequently the got

married in the year 2022 as per Hindu rites and customs at

Kumarghat and thereafter started to leading her conjugal life

with said Amit Das in the house of the appellant despite his

objection wherein the respondent No.1 was tortured by the

appellant and his wife on monetary demand and subsequently

when she was pregnant, she was driven out of her matrimonial

residence. Finding no other alternative, she started living in a

rented house of her mother at Fatikroy and on 11.04.2023, the

respondent no.2 was born but unfortunately in May, 2023, her

husband, Amit Das i.e. son of the appellant herein, had expired,

leading the respondents to starvation. When the respondent no.1

found that after death of her husband, the appellant had not

been maintaining her and her daughter, she approached the

learned Judge, Family Court, Kailasahar, by filing a petition under

Section 19 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956

claiming maintenance from the appellant being her father-in-law,

for herself and her minor daughter.

4. After filing of the case the same was registered and

marked as Civil Misc.14 of 2023. Summon was issued upon the

parties to the lis. The appellant, being opposite party, contested

the case by submitting written objection wherein he denied the

allegations made therein. In the written objection, the opposite

party has admitted that his son Amit Das and the respondent

Page 3

no.1 herein i.e. petitioner no.1 in Civil Misc.14 of 2023, had love

affairs and they got married and also admitted that he had never

accepted the petitioner no.1 i.e. the respondent no.1 herein as

his daughter-in-law. The appellant also stated that he is a e-

rickshaw puller and an ailing person and is completely dependent

on income of his wife who is a maid servant.

5. The respondent no.1 as petitioner examined herself as

PW1 and her mother as PW-2. On the other hand, the appellant

was examined as OPW-1. The examination of PW-1, the appellant

herein, was replica to her petition under Section 19 of the Act

and PW-2, reiterated the version of PW-1. OPW-1, the appellant

herein in his examination and cross-examination reiterated his

version to his written objection. He also admitted the marriage of

his son with the respondent no.1 herein, death of his son