HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA AGARTALA Crl.Rev.P.No.25 of 2025 Sri Anil Debbarma S/o. Late Bishwa Chandra Debbarma, C/o. Sri Sudhangshu Ghosh, R/o. Natunnagar, P.S. West Agartala, Dist.- West Tripura.

---- Petitioner(s)

Versus Smt. Bani Debbarma, W/o. Sri Anil Debbarma, R/o. Natun Palli, Gorkhabasti, P.O. Kunjaban – 799006 P.S. NCC, Agartala, Dist.- West Tripura ---- Respondent(s)

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Debesh Ch. Roy, Adv.

For Respondent(s) : None.

Date of Hearing &

Judgment and Order : 13.03.2026 Whether fit for Reporting : NO HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BISWAJIT PALIT Judgment & Order(Oral)

This revision petition is filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. and under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act challenging the judgment and order dated 27.02.2025 passed by Learned Judge, Family Court, Agartala, West Tripura in connection with case No.Crl.Misc.393 of 2022.

02. Heard Learned Counsel, Mr. D. Roy appearing on behalf of the petitioner-husband but none appeared on behalf of the respondent-wife-petitioner inspite of proper service of notice although in earlier occasion the respondent has appeared through her engaged Learned Counsel.

03. Taking part in the hearing, Learned Counsel for the petitioner drawn the attention of this Court that the respondent O.P. being the wife of the petitioner-husband filed one petition before the Family Court seeking maintenance for her minor son Master Anibash Debbarma which was numbered as Crl.Misc.393 of 2022. It was further submitted that both the parties of this proceeding are Government servant and in para No.16 it was specifically asserted that the respondent-wife-petitioner was drawing gross salary of Rs.97,650/- per month and the petitioner- husband was drawing Rs.40,000/- per month as LDC from the Department of Horticulture. The said minor son being the adopted son was taking care of by the respondent-wife- petitioner but the Learned Trial Court knowing fully the fact that the respondent-wife-petitioner had sufficient means to maintain the minor son, awarded maintenance of Rs.10,000/- in favour of the minor son w.e.f. 14.06.2022 but according to Learned Counsel, the petitioner-husband has taken huge loan from the department and he has to bear other expenditures. So, the amount awarded by Learned Judge, Family Court was unreasonable and exorbitant and as such Learned Counsel urged for modification of the order passed by Learned Judge, Family Court, Agartala.

It was further submitted that since the respondent-wife is in service and also is in a position to bear expenditure of the minor son, so it would be prudent if the order is modified and the amount of maintenance is reduced. As already stated none appeared at the time of hearing on behalf of the respondent-wife although in earlier occasion the respondent-wife appeared through her engaged counsel and sought time for hearing and time was granted. Thus, it appears that the respondent-wife is not interested to contest the case.

04. I have perused the judgment dated 27.02.2025 passed by Learned Judge, Family Court, Agartala, West Tripura in Crl.Misc.No.393 of 2022. In para No.16 it has been asserted by Learned Court below that the respondent-wife is a Government servant drawing gross salary of Rs.97,650/- and her net salary was Rs.30,508/- after contribution to GPF and other expenditures and the O.P. is also serving under Horticulture Department as LDC and he was drawing Rs.40,000/- per month. It is also on record that he had drawn Rs.8,00,000/- as loan from the bank and for that he has to pay a considerable amount as EMI every month.

However, Learned Trial Court considering the facts and circumstances of the case awarded maintenance in favour of the minor son of the respondent-wife at Rs.10,000/- per month. It is also the admitted position that said minor son is an adopted son and Section 125 of Cr.P.C.

provides scope for granting maintenance to such sum. The petitioner-husband did not dispute that the son of the respondent-wife is not his ado