Research › Search › Judgment

Tripura High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 156 (TRI)

Mohan Miah, son of Nayeb Ali v. Rinku Begam

2016-07-22

S.TALAPATRA

body2016
JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. N. Majumder, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. A. De, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. This is a revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 and 482 of the Cr.P.C. to question the order dated 25.02.2016 delivered in Misc. 12 of 2014 by the Judicial Magistrate, first class, Sonamura, West Tripura, Court No.2. By the said order dated 25.02.2016, the petitioner has been directed to pay monthly maintenance allowance @ Rs.4,500/- to the respondents with effect from 13.03.2014. It has been further directed by the Judicial Magistrate, first class, Sonamura, West Tripura, Court No.2 that the Drawing and Disbursing Officer (DDO, in short) of East Fotamati High School shall deduct and credit the said maintenance allowance every month to the bank account of the respondent No.1, details of which shall be furnished by the respondent No.1 to the said officer. It has been in addition directed that arrear maintenance allowance for the period from 13.03.2014 till 29.02.2016 shall be paid in 36(thirty six) monthly instalments and be sent to the petitioner No.1 every month by money order. 3. Mr. Majumder, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the respondent No.1 has voluntarily left the matrimonial home without any reasonable cause and 'for such desertion' the respondent No.1 is not entitled to get any maintenance. That apart, Mr. Majumder, learned counsel has submitted that the petitioner is an Under Graduate Teacher on fixed pay basis. He even did not earn more than Rs.8,000/- per month. In this regard, Mr. Majumder, learned counsel has drawn notice of this court regarding the observation made by the court below in the following terms: “It reveals from the latest salary certificate of the OP that the OP drawn Rs.7,939/- as his net salary. Therefore, it is proved that the OP is an earning person and in the absence of any other documentary proof, it cannot be believed that he OP is earning more than Rs.8000/- per month from various other sources.” Having assessed the income as such, the said direction quantifying the monthly allowance has been issued by the court. 4. By filing this petition, the petitioner made an attempt to add some new fact. In the considered opinion of this court, such fact cannot be entertained by this court under its revisional jurisdiction. 5. Mr. 4. By filing this petition, the petitioner made an attempt to add some new fact. In the considered opinion of this court, such fact cannot be entertained by this court under its revisional jurisdiction. 5. Mr. A. De, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that apart from the salary income, the petitioner has other sources of income. As such, the income as assessed by the court below is in the lower side. This court has discretion to reassess the income of the petitioner. He has submitted that the petitioner should not have agitated against the maintenance allowance and if that is reduced the respondents would suffer serious hardship. 6. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel in the given context, this court does not find any ground to interfere with the finding as to the reason of leaving the matrimonial home by the respondent No.1 as well as the income that has been assessed. Having regard to the income of the petitioner, the respondent No.1 shall be entitled to a maintenance allowance of Rs.2000/- per month whereas the respondent No.2 is entitled to maintenance allowance at Rs.1,500/- per month, both with effect from 13.03.2014. Therefore, the petitioner is directed to pay Rs.3,500/- per month to the respondent No.1, as there is no dispute that the respondent No.2 is not only minor, so minor that she is unable to handle her own finance. Since Mr. Majumder, learned counsel did not express any grievance regarding the deduction by the DDO of East Fotamati High School, the direction passed by the court below for deduction of the maintenance allowance by the DDO shall remain unaltered and as such the DDO of East Fotamati High School shall deduct Rs.3,500/- per month and remit the same to the respondent No.1 (the petitioner in Misc.12 of 2014) every month and positively by 7th day of every calendar month to her bank account. Now, re-calculating the arrear maintenance, the petitioner shall re-pay the arrear maintenance by 30 (thirty) monthly equal installments and that amount shall be sent in the same manner as directed by the court below i.e. by Money Order every month. It is made clear that the respondents would be at liberty to approach the court if the petitioner receives the regular scale of pay from the employer. It is made clear that the respondents would be at liberty to approach the court if the petitioner receives the regular scale of pay from the employer. The petitioner may take back the respondents to his home by an assuring family dialogue in order to reconstruct the marital life as well as the life of the minor. If the respondents are taken back to the petitioner’s home, it is needless to observe that the respondents will not be entitled to get the maintenance from the petitioner. 7. With this observation and direction, this petition stands allowed to the extent as indicated above. LCRs be returned forthwith.