Tripura High Court
Mrs. P. Dhar vs Ms. N. Ghosh on 20 May, 2022
Author: T. Amarnath Goud
Bench: T. Amarnath Goud
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
CRP 20 of 2022
For Petitioner(s) : Mrs. P. Dhar, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Ms. N. Ghosh, Adv.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T. AMARNATH GOUD
ORDER
20.05.2022 Heard Mrs. P. Dhar, learned counsel appears for the petitioner as well as Ms. N. Ghosh, learned counsel appears for the respondent.
2. This petition is filed under Section 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 08.10.2021 passed by the learned Addl. Judge, Family Court, West Tripura, Agartala in Case No. Crl. Misc. (Int) 363 of 2021 arising out of Crl. Misc. 362 of 2021.
3. The brief facts of this case is that the petitioner and the respondents are married to each other and their marriage was solemnized on 30.11.2017. That, after few days of marriage the petitioner noticed that the respondent behaved arrogantly and rudely with the family members of the petitioner. That the petitioner thought that the respondent needed some time to accommodate with the family members of the petitioner. That, the petitioner was transferred from Kolkata on 13.08.2020 at Agartala Airport. That upon his return to Agartala the petitioner and the respondent started residing in their matrimonial home with the family of the petitioner. That, the petitioner, despite his best efforts to maintain peaceful conjugal relations was unable as the respondents adamantly continued her ill behavior towards the petitioner and petitioner's family creating inharmonious and disturbing situations regularly. That, on 29.04.2021 the respondent left the company of the petitioner and despite the petitioner's best effort he could not bring the respondent back home. That, the petitioner soon thereafter received summons from the Ld. Family Court, Agartala, West Tripura in Case No. Misc. (Maintenance) 362 of 2021 and in Case No. Misc. (Interim) 363 of 2021.
That, the petitioner most respectfully begs to submits that after hearing the learned Judge of the Family Court by order dated 08.10.2021 disposed of the petition for maintenance vide No. Misc. (Int) 363 of 2021 with a direction upon the petitioner herein to pay a sum of Rs. 7,000/- per month as maintenance.
Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the Judgment and Order dated 08.10.2021 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, West Tripura in Case No. Misc. (Int) 363 of 2021 the petitioner herein prefer this revision application before this Hon'ble Court.
4. The case of the petitioner is that the court below has fixed an amount of Rs. 7,000/- per month towards monthly maintenance. Aggrieved thereby the petitioner is before this court on the ground that he is working in airlines cargo and the salary amount which was paid to him, due to the pandemic there is deduction and less amount of salary being paid. That apart, he is having expenses to which he has to legally fulfil and the other occupations. Hence, he prayed that the amount which is fixed by court below on higher salary and requested to reduce. Further, the petitioner-husband contended that he is interested to take the wife to his marital place and lead the conjugal life. The both parties are present before this court. Respondent-wife through her counsel submits that she is not interested to join her petitioner-husband. And, further, made several allegations that there were number of occasions when the petitioner-husband made attempts to kill her by way of covering her face by pillow, by lighting the gas cylinder, by putting some suspected spray on her face and he has also broken her fingers. But, unfortunately, she has not filed any complaint against the husband. Heard both sides. This court is not in a position to accept the contentions made by the respondent-wife and however, it is not for this court to go into the disputed question of facts. Hence, this court is confined with regard to considering the case of maintenance, accordingly, the maintenance amount awarded by the court below of Rs. 7,000/-, this court feels that it is reasonable and the same is confirmed.
5. With the above observation, this CRP stands dismissed.
JUDGE Rahul