JUDGMENT & ORDER

This petition is filed under Section 438 read with Section 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 is filed challenging the order dated 24.07.2025 passed by the Learned Additional Judge, Family Court, Agartala, West Tripura, in connection with Case No. Crl. Misc. (Int). 231/2024 (arising out of Crl. Misc. No. 230/2024). By the impugned order, the Learned Addl. Judge has awarded interim maintenance of Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand) per month to the petitioners is the respondent herein.

2. Heard Learned Sr. Counsel Mr. Subrata Sarkar, assisted by Learned Counsel Mr. Kabrabam Dhirendra Singha and Learned Counsel Ms. Megha Sarkar, appearing on behalf of the petitioner husband-OP also heard Learned Sr. Counsel Mr. Purusuttam Roy Barman, assisted by Learned Counsel Mr. Samarjit Bhattacharjee and Learned Counsel Mr. Kawsik Nath, appearing on behalf of the respondent-wife petitioner.

3. At the time of hearing, Learned Sr. Counsel Mr. S. Sarkar, appearing on behalf of the petitioner-husband, submitted that the respondent, as petitioner, had filed a petition for maintenance against the respondent-OP is the petitioner herein under Section 125 of CR.P.C. In the said proceeding, a separate petition was filed for granting interim maintenance till disposal of the main petition, which was registered as Crl. Misc. (Int). No.231 of 2024. After hearing both the sides, Learned Addl. Judge, Family Court, Agartala, West Tripura, passed the impugned order. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said order, the alleged husband, as petitioner, has preferred the present petition challenging the legality and maintainability of the said order.

4. After that, Learned Counsel for the petitioner-husband, first of all, drawn the attention of the Court to the fact that, in a proceeding under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., the wife is required to establish that she is the legally married wife of the petitioner. However, in the present case, the alleged petitioner, claiming to be the wife of the petitioner- husband, could not produce any document to establish that her marriage had taken place with the present petitioner-husband. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the petitioner-husband had a legally wedded wife, who had been suffering from illness and ultimately expired on 09.01.2020.

5. Learned Counsel further submitted that, surprisingly, according to the respondent-wife, the alleged marriage with the petitioner-husband took place in the year 2012. However, during the lifetime of the wife of the petitioner-husband, the respondent-wife never raised any claim that she was the legally wedded wife of the petitioner-husband, nor did she claim any maintenance or other benefit from him. It was only after about four years from the death of the wife that the respondent-wife, claiming herself to be the wife of the petitioner-husband, filed the application for maintenance, which, according to Learned Counsel, has got no legal basis.

6. Learned Counsel further submitted that, even if it is proved that the petitioner-husband had married the respondent-wife during the subsistence of his marriage with another woman, who subsequently expired in the year 2020. So, as per law, the respondent-wife would not be entitled to claim maintenance from the petitioner-husband.

7. It was further submitted that, till date, the respondent-wife could neither produce nor proved any document or evidence to establish that the petitioner-husband had divorced his first wife, so as to substantiate her claim. Therefore, in such a situation, during the subsistence of the marriage between the petitioner-husband and his wife, there was no scope for the respondent-wife to claim maintenance from the petitioner-husband.

8. In course of hearing, Learned Counsel also referred to the interim petition filed by the respondent, as well as the written objection submitted by the present petitioner