Research › Search › Judgment

Tripura High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 241 (TRI)

Prakshish Debbarma v. Lipika Debbarma

2014-06-25

S.TALAPATRA

body2014
JUDGMENT S. Talapatra, J. 1. Heard Mr. D.C. Saha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. A.L. Saha, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. The challenge in this petition is against the judgment and order dated 24.03.2011 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Agartala, West Tripura in case No. Miscellaneous 242/2009, whereby the petitioner has been directed to remit Rs.4,000 per month to the respondent No. 1 as the maintenance allowance of the respondent No. 2, Miss. Nasma Debbarma, within the 10th day of every English Calendar month. However, the respondent No. 1 has not been granted any allowance as there was no evidence that the respondent No. 1 was the legally married wife of the petitioner herein. 3. The respondent No. 1 had filed a petition under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. for having the maintenance allowance for herself and for her daughter from the petitioner. After adjudication and on considering the forensic results of the DNA sample, it has been held by the Judge, Family Court, Agartala, West Tripura, that the respondent No. 2 is the biological daughter of the respondent No. 1 and the petitioner. Hence, the direction of paying maintenance was passed. 4. Mr. D.C. Saha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has fairly submitted that the petitioner is not opposing to pay the maintenance allowance to the respondent No. 2, but the quantum of maintenance allowance is exorbitantly high in comparison to what the petitioner earns as a 'Welder' in a private firm, situated at Howrah, West Bengal. Mr. Saha has also pressed a document issued by the employer in favour of the petitioner to demonstrate that the petitioner only earns a sum of Rs.3,325 per month (Annexure-F to the petition, being C.M.Appl. (Crl.) No. 218/2011). 5. This court, on scrutiny, finds that the amount reflected in the said wage certificate is the 'consolidated' monthly salary of the petitioner. It does not reflect as to whether the petitioner is paid more as the special allowance or not. By the order dated 13.06.2011, this court has categorically observed as under: The petitioner contends that he is employed as a Welder (Gas & Electric) at Howrah, West Bengal and considering that he earns only about Rs. 2800/- per month, the amount ordered as maintenance is beyond the means of the petitioner. Mr. By the order dated 13.06.2011, this court has categorically observed as under: The petitioner contends that he is employed as a Welder (Gas & Electric) at Howrah, West Bengal and considering that he earns only about Rs. 2800/- per month, the amount ordered as maintenance is beyond the means of the petitioner. Mr. Rathor submits that the Court could not have taken into account the fact that the petitioner is the son of a well to do father. However the certificate given by the employer shows only a consolidated salary of the petitioner and his actual salary in pursuant to the subsequent vocational qualification is not reflected in the salary certificate. 6. A very meagre increase has been demonstrated by the said wage certificate. On considering the vocational qualification as well as the nature of employment of the petitioner, this court is of the view that it would be just and proper to direct the petitioner to pay maintenance allowance of Rs.3,000 per month to the respondent No. 2, inasmuch as the petitioner is capable of earning much more. 7. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to pay Rs.3,000 (rupees three thousand) per month to the respondent No. 2, which amount shall be paid within the 10th day of every English Calendar month by way of Money Order. The petitioner shall bear the Money Order charge for remitting the said amount. It is further made clear that since this Court has modified the quantum of maintenance, the petitioner is liable to pay the arrears. Having an eye on the income of the petitioner, this court determines a lump-sum arrear to the extent of Rs.24,000. The said amount of Rs.24,000 (rupees twenty four thousand) shall be paid by the petitioner to the respondent No. 2 in 12 (twelve) equal instalments and, the first instalment has to be paid by 10th August, 2014. It is further made clear that the arrear amount has to be paid in addition to the monthly maintenance allowance that the petitioner has been directed to pay to the respondent No. 2 by this court. If any non-compliance reported, the respondent No. 2, represented by the respondent No. 1 may take action against the petitioner by approaching the Judge, Family Court, who shall take all possible coercive action against the petitioner, for realising the maintenance allowance which includes the instalments of the arrears. 8. If any non-compliance reported, the respondent No. 2, represented by the respondent No. 1 may take action against the petitioner by approaching the Judge, Family Court, who shall take all possible coercive action against the petitioner, for realising the maintenance allowance which includes the instalments of the arrears. 8. With this observation and direction, this petition stands disposed of.