KRIPA RANI DEBBARMA Vs. SHYMAL TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal revision petition has been filed challenging the judgment dated 15.07.2019 delivered in case No. Misc. 516 of 2016 by the Additional Judge, Family Court, Agartala in a proceeding under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C in short) whereby the respondent (husband hereinafter) was directed to pay Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand) for each of his daughter Rasmi Tripura and son Rajbir Tripura towards their maintenance. Maintenance allowance having been denied to the wife, she has challenged the impugned judgment of the Family Court in this criminal revision petition.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are as under:

(3.) When notice was issued to the husband from the Family court, he appeared in court and filed written objection against the claim of his wife. He admitted his marriage with the petitioner and paternity of the daughter. But he denied the paternity of the son and claimed that when she conceived second time he had no access to her. It was further stated by the husband that during her second pregnancy when she was living with her parents at Bishramganh, the husband sent a messenger to her requesting her to come back. She refused and informed him through the messenger that a tumor developed in her stomach and for this reason she was unable to come back to him. The wife thus concealed her pregnancy which created doubts about his paternity of the son. He alleged that his wife never maintained a good relationship with him. According to him, he purchased a rubber garden with his savings from private tuition in the name of his wife which was sold out by her. Thereafter they had undertaken various businesses together including a poultry farm and manufacture and sale of garments. All those businesses were carried out in the parental house of the wife in her name and the wife used to look after those businesses and keep the profits in her accounts. He denied her allegations of misbehavior. He also denied to have developed illicit relationship with the maid servant. Rather, it was alleged by him that the wife engaged the maid servant for her own convenience and he had no time to make an affair with her, because he used to work from dawn till night to earn bread for the family. It was further alleged by the husband that the wife, during the period of her stay with him at Agartala, had taken loan from many people beyond his knowledge. Thereafter she left for her matrimonial home at Bishramganj without repaying such loan. After his wife left, the people from whom she borrowed money assembled in his house at Agartala and demanded repayment of their loan. One of them also filed a case against his wife under the Negotiable Instrument Act claiming the refund of loan. This apart, their maid servant Smt. Laxmi Malakar also filed FIR against the wife at East Agartala police station. It was alleged by her husband that in fear of the consequence of her misdeeds, she took shelter with her parents at Bishramganj. She did not return even after the husband requested her to come back. According to the husband, he earns not more than Rs.6000/- (Rupees six thousand) per month from his private tuition. His wife on the other hand has huge amount of monthly income from her business at Bishramganj. The husband, therefore, refused to provide any maintenance allowance to his wife and the son.