##PAGE1##

TRHC010009592026

2026:THC:1368 HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA AGARTALA Crl. Rev. P. No.37 of 2026 Smt. Meghalee Debnath, W/O- Sri Mrinmoy Debnath, D/O- Sri Manojit Debnath, R/O-Krishnanagar, Natun Palli, P.O.- Ramnagar, P.S.- West Agartala, District- West Tripura.

…. Revision Petitioner.

Versus Sri Mrinmoy Debnath, S/O- Sri Dipankar Debnath, R/O- L.N. Bari Road, P.O.- Agartala, P.S.- East Agartala, District- West Tripura-799001.

…….Respondent.

For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Megha Sarkar, Adv.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sudipta Sekhar Debnath, Adv.

Date of Hearing : 24.09.2026 Date of delivery of Judgment and Order : 29.09.2026 Whether fit for Reporting : YES HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BISWAJIT PALIT Judgment & Order This criminal revision petition is filed under Section

438 read with Section 442 of BNSS, 2023 challenging the order dated 08.04.2026 passed by Learned Additional Judge, Family Court, Agartala, West Tripura in case No. Criminal Misc.(Int.)

484 of 2025 arising out of Crl. Misc. 482 of 2025.

02. Heard Learned Counsel, Ms. Megha Sarkar appearing on behalf of the petitioner-wife and also heard Learned Counsel, Mr. Sudipta Sekhar Debnath appearing on behalf of the respondent-husband.

03. At the time of hearing, Learned Counsel for the petitioner-wife first of all drawn the attention of the Court that the present petitioner-wife filed one maintenance petition seeking maintenance against her husband on the ground of refusal of providing maintenance to the petitioner-wife which has been registered as Crl. Misc. 482 of 2025 and in the said petition a separate application was filed for granting interim maintenance. Before the Learned Trial Court both the parties appeared and after hearing both the sides by the impugned order Learned Judge, Family Court has rejected the application for granting interim maintenance filed by the petitioner-wife and being aggrieved this revision petition has been filed.

04. It was further submitted by Learned Counsel for the petitioner-wife referring Para Nos.5, 6, 7, 8 of the said order that the respondent-husband in the said proceeding did not dispute his marriage with the petitioner-wife but the Learned Trial Court hyper technically disallowed the claim filed by the petitioner-wife only on the ground that she has voluntarily left the company of her husband without any sufficient reason in view of the provision provided under Sub-

Section (4) of Section 144 of BNSS, 2023.

05. It was further submitted by Learned Counsel for the petitioner-wife that the present petitioner-wife was subjected to inhuman cruelty by her husband and his family members and under compelling circumstances she was compelled to file the petition for maintenance.

06. It was further submitted that, before the Learned Trial Court both the parties have submitted their statements of assets and liabilities. The petitioner-wife specifically asserted that she had no independent source of income. However, the Learned Trial Court in absence of evidence on record came to the observation that, there was no merit in the petition filed by the petitioner-wife and thus rejected the same.

07. It was further submitted that in the petition it was asserted by the petitioner-wife that the monthly income of the respondent-husband is Rs.80,000/- per month as because he has got one shop of his own near Laxmi Narayan Bari, Agartala and apart from that he is doing some tuition but the Learned Trial Court did not consider the same and disallowed her claim.

In support of her contention Learned Counsel for the petitioner-wife also relied upon one citation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Sunita Kachwaha & Ors. Vs. Anil Kachwaha reported in 2014 Supreme(SC) 769, wherein in Para Nos.7, 8 and 9, Hon’ble the Apex Court observed as under:-

“7. The High Court has set aside the award of maintenance to the wife on the ground that the separate stay of the wife due to alleged dowry torture is not justified and that she has left the matrimonial house without any ju