Research › Search › Judgment

Tripura High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 127 (TRI)

Paritosh Saha v. Jahanabi Roy (Saha)

2022-03-15

T.AMARNATH GOUD

body2022
JUDGMENT T. Amarnath Goud, J. - This instant criminal revision petition has been filed under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 directed against the part of the judgment and order dated 03.04.2021 passed in Case No. Misc. 533 of 2019 by learned Judge, Family Court, Agartala, Tripura rejecting the prayer of the petitioner under Section 127 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 for alteration of the order of maintenance granted in favour of divorced-wife Smt. Jahanabi Roy on 05.09.2013 in Misc. 269 of 2012 under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., 1973. 2. The brief facts leading to this revision petition are that on the prayer of the respondent No. 1 being the valid wife of the petitioner, learned Judge, Family Court granted maintenance of Rs. 1,500/- for each of respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 2 to be paid by the petitioner being the wife and minor son respectively of the petitioner herein commencing from 01.09.2013 by an order dated 05.09.2013 passed in Misc. 269 of 2021. 3. In the meantime, the marriage between the petitioner and respondent No. 1 had been dissolved by a decree of divorce passed in T.S. (Divorce) 01 of 2014 dated 08.05.2015 by learned Judge, Family Court, Agartala. But the order of maintenance passed in Misc. 269/2021 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. 1973 continued. 4. Respondent No. 1, in the meantime, started her own profession as an agent of postal insurance and other saving deposits under license No. CA/TPR/AGT/592. She is also an agent of Life Insurance Corporation of India Ltd. and is deriving substantial income which is sufficient to maintain her person. Respondent No. 2 i.e. son of the petitioner, born on 26.05.1999 has attained majority on 25.05.2017 and, therefore, he is no longer entitled to maintenance from the petitioner for his person. 5. In view of the above facts, the petitioner on 28.08.2019 filed a petition before the learned Judge, Family Court, Agartala under Section 127 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 praying for absolving the petitioner from the liability of paying maintenance to respondents by making due alteration of the order dated 05.09.2013 passed in Misc. 269 of 2012. 6. The respondents were duly served with notice, but they did not turn up. So, the case was heard and disposed of ex parte. 7. 269 of 2012. 6. The respondents were duly served with notice, but they did not turn up. So, the case was heard and disposed of ex parte. 7. After hearing the arguments, the learned Family Court, Agartala partially allowed the prayer of the petitioner herein passing the following order on 03.04.2021:- "7). Situated thus, the OP No. 1 Smt. Jahanabi Roy will continue to receive maintenance from the petitioner as before but their son Master Sankar Saha will not be entitled to maintenance w.e.f. the date of passing this order" 8. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the first part of the judgment and order dated 03.04.2021 allowing the continuance of maintenance to respondent No. 1, the petitioner herein has filed this instant revision petition and prayed for the following reliefs:- "(i) Admit this revision petition condoning the delay; (ii) Issue notice upon the respondents; (iii) Call for the records of the learned Trial Court; (iv) Absolve the petitioner from liability of payment of maintenance to the respondent No. 2 by making due alteration of the order dated 05.09.2013 passed in Misc. 269 of 2012; And (v) Pass any other order or orders as the Hon'ble High Court deems fit and proper." 9. Heard Mr. D.K. Daschoudhury, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. None appears for the respondents. 10. Mr. D.K. Daschoudhury, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that respondent No. 1 is having sufficient source of income by way of working as an agent of postal insurance and LIC Ltd. Accordingly, the petitioner-counsel has prayed for absolving liability of his client from paying maintenance of Rs. 1,500/- per month to the respondent No. 1. He further contended that the only source of income of the petitioner herein is a pan shop business and he has a meager source of income. 11. Based on these 2(two) grounds, Mr. D.K. Daschoudhury, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has made his submission. 12. This Court is not inclined to consider the said submissions. Accordingly, the order dated 03.04.2021 passed in Misc. 533 of 2019 is confirmed dismissing the instant criminal revision petition on the ground that sufficient evidence has not been placed on record to show that respondent No. 1 is working as a postal insurance agent and is having sufficient source of income. Accordingly, the order dated 03.04.2021 passed in Misc. 533 of 2019 is confirmed dismissing the instant criminal revision petition on the ground that sufficient evidence has not been placed on record to show that respondent No. 1 is working as a postal insurance agent and is having sufficient source of income. More so, the oral submission of the petitioner-counsel that his client is not having a sufficient source of income based on his pan shop also cannot be considered. 13. Accordingly, the instant revision petition is dismissed. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.