CHANDAN DEY Vs. FULU RANI DEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Ms. P. Dhar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. A. Pal, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

(2.) At the instance of the respondent, who is the wife of the petitioner, a petition under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. was filed claiming maintenance as the petitioner was refusing to maintain the respondent and her unmarried daughter. After recording the evidence and hearing the parties at length, the Judge, Family Court, Agartala, West Tripura by the judgment and order dated 26.02.2013 delivered in Case No. Miscellaneous 303 of 2011 has observed and directed as under:

(3.) Ms. P. Dhar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has raised two pronged objections viz. (1) when there is no proof of refusal of maintaining the respondent whether a petition under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. can be maintained or not Secondly, whether an unmarried daughter aged about 23 years can claim maintenance or any maintenance allowance can be directed to be paid to her by the court within the scheme of Section 125(1) of the Cr.P.C. As ancillary to these objections, Ms. Dhar, learned counsel has also raised a question whether in absence of noncompliance of the order of maintenance, there can be any order either under Section 125(3) of the Cr.P.C. or under Section 128 of the Cr.P.C. directing attachment of the property of the person who is under direction to pay the maintenance allowance or simultaneous with the order of maintenance If the answer is in the negative, the latter part of the order whereby the Superintendent of Police, Gomati, Tripura has been directed to deduct a sum of Rs.6,000/- (Rupees six thousand) only per month from the salary of the petitioner is liable to be interfered with. There cannot be any difference of opinion and Mr. A. Pal, learned counsel appearing for the respondent has fairly submitted that even if the daughter is unmarried but not a minor, the daughter or for her no maintenance can be claimed from the father. However, this court is not in agreement with the submission of Ms. Dhar, learned counsel that there was no refusal. It is apparent that since the petitioner was not maintaining the respondent, she had to approach the Family Court for a direction for monthly maintenance allowance.