Tripura High Court
Sri Dipak Bhattacharjee vs Smt. Munna Deb & Another on 28 November, 2019
Author: Akil Kureshi
Bench: Akil Kureshi
Page 1 of 2
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
Crl.Petn. No.30/2019
Sri Dipak Bhattacharjee
----Petitioner(s)
Versus
Smt. Munna Deb & another
-----Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. B.N. Majumder, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Somik Deb, Advocate, Mr. A. Dey, Advocate.
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AKIL KURESHI Order 28/11/2019 This revision petition is filed by the husband to challenge an order dated 20.04.2019 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Agartala, West Tripura by which the present petitioner husband has been directed to pay interim maintenance @ `5,000 (rupees five thousand) per month to the respondent.
In this petition, case of the husband is that he does not have adequate income to pay the said sum of `5,000 every month. In any case, the wife herself is working as an LIC agent and she earns sizeable income which fact she had withheld from the Family Court.
The petition is opposed by the respondent on the ground of maintainability as well as merits. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the order passed by the Family Court being an interim order revision petition would not be maintainable. Further the wife is residing with two children. Husband in any case has to support the children.
Page 2 of 2
First, the preliminary objection to the maintainability. Even if strictly speaking a revision petition is not maintainable, a writ petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India would always be maintainable against the said order. This preliminary objection is, therefore, not entertained.
Coming to the merits, it appears undisputed that the respondent wife is working as an LIC agent. Her income tax return is produced in the present petition which she should have produced before the Court below but had not done. Despite this, there is no scope for interference in the impugned order. This is so because the couple has two children. Younger daughter is minor. The son who is older has just crossed 18 years of age. Under any circumstances, the petitioner has the responsibility to maintain and if the wife is also earning, contribute to the maintenance of the minor daughter and in the larger context of factual scenario, even the son who may have just become major, though strictly speaking not by way of legal responsibility but a moral one.
The husband admittedly runs a grocery store and also is engaged in providing cable network. Asking him to spare a sum of `5,000 (rupees five thousand) per month for his own children is, therefore, perfectly justified.
In the result, this revision petition is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
(AKIL KURESHI), CJ Pulak