Research › Search › Judgment

Tripura High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 317 (TRI)

Shib Sankar Datta v. Chameli Datta

2022-07-29

T.AMARNATH GOUD

body2022
JUDGMENT T. Amarnath Goud, J. - Heard Mr. B. Majumder, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. Debnath, learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the respondents. 2. By means of filing this revision petition under Section-19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 along with its up-to date amendments against the impugned order dated 30.05.2022 along with all the subsequent orders being passed thereon, rendering in case No. Civil Misc. FC/UDP 15 of 2022 (Execution) arising out of case No. Civil Misc/FC/UDP 68 of 2018, passed by the learned Family Judge, Udaipur, Gomati District, Tripura, directing the petitioner-husband to pay Rs. 1,20,000/- as arrear of maintenance allowance to the respondents along with issuance of distress warrant against the movable properties of the petitioner-husband. 3. The facts in brief are that the respondent-wife filed a case under Section-125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure vide case No. Civil. Misc.FC/UDP 68 of 2018 before the learned Family Judge, Udaipur, Gomati, Tripura having claimed the maintenance allowance of Rs. 15,000/- per month from the petitioner-husband for the livelihood of herself and also for her two minor daughters, the respondents No. 2 and 3 herein. 4. The marriage between the parties have solemnized on 11.10.2004 as per Hindu Rites and Customs and thereafter, both of them started living together as husband and wife and out of their wedlock two female children were born being the respondents No. 2 & 3. It was alleged by the wife-respondent that since few months of their marriage the husband-petitioner started misbehave with the respondent wife and always she was subjected to torture both mentally and physically in order to bring a cash amount of Rs. 50,000/- from her parents and the parents of the respondent wife gave Rs. 50,000/- to the petitioner. The petitioner was a government employee holding the post of constable (Traffic) under the department of Tripura Police, Govt. of Tripura having a monthly salary of Rs. 35,000/-. It was further alleged that on 22.05.2018, the petitioner assaulted her and she finding no other alternative under compelling circumstances left the matrimonial house with her two children in the house of her parents. 5. of Tripura having a monthly salary of Rs. 35,000/-. It was further alleged that on 22.05.2018, the petitioner assaulted her and she finding no other alternative under compelling circumstances left the matrimonial house with her two children in the house of her parents. 5. On earlier occasion, the respondent-wife filed a petition being C.R.17 of 2018 (DV) under Section-12 read with Sections-19(8), 20(3), 22 and 23 of the Protection of Woman from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Udaipur, Gomati Tripura against her husband for getting stridhan as well as compensation for damage. The petitioner contested the case by filing written objection denying all the allegations levelled against him by the wife-respondent. Subsequently, by an order dated 22.02.2019, all the stridhan were returned as claimed by the respondent-wife. 6. In the maintenance proceeding, the learned Court below passed an order directing the petitioner-husband to pay the aforesaid amount of maintenance allowance to the respondent-wife and her two children. Being aggrieved by for having no maintenance allowance @ 10,000/- per month w.e.f. the order dated 25.01.2019, filed an execution proceeding vide case No. Civil. Misc.(Ex.)/FC/ UDP/85 of 2019 against the petitioner herein, before the Executing Court i.e. the learned Family Judge, Udaipur, Gomati, Tripura praying for enforcement of the order dated 25.01.2019 by way of recovery of arrear of maintenance from 01.06.2019 to 31.08.2019. 7. It has been further submitted that in the said execution proceeding issued a distress warrant against the movable properties of the petitioner due to default in making payment of arrear of maintenance allowance from 01.06.2019 to 31.08.2019. Against the impugned order dated 16.02.2022, the petitioner has filed a Crl. Rev. P. 13 of 2022 before this Court for setting aside/modification relating to such distress warrant against the moveable properties of the petitioner-husband. This Court vide order dated 20.05.2022 directed the petitioner to deposit an amount of Rs. 30,000/- and with the said direction the petition was disposed of. 8. Mr. Majumder, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-husband has submitted that on 09.09.2020, the petitioner has lost his job. A disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the petitioner by the department, Tripura Police, Govt. of Tripura on the charge of absent from duty w.e.f. 14.08.2019 without valid permission. After completion of the said disciplinary proceeding, on 09.09.2020, the concerned authority passed the final order of compulsory retirement from service of the petitioner. A disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the petitioner by the department, Tripura Police, Govt. of Tripura on the charge of absent from duty w.e.f. 14.08.2019 without valid permission. After completion of the said disciplinary proceeding, on 09.09.2020, the concerned authority passed the final order of compulsory retirement from service of the petitioner. Subsequently, the petitioner has filed a petition being WP(C) No. 715 of 2021 before this Court and this Court vide order dated 23.05.2022 has allowed the petition remanding back the matter to the disciplinary authority for further adjudication. 9. For the purpose of reference, of reference, the order dated 30.05.2022 passed by the Court below may be reproduced herein below: 'Court is of the opinion that the warrant was already issued for realization of the arrear maintenance and it shall not be proper to cancel the same wanting for WO on the part of the OP when the OP did not avail his opportunity to file the same as per order dated 28.03.2022. Moreover, the said petition is not supported by verification or affidavit or any medical document to take satisfaction as to the submission of the OP in his petition.' 10. Mr. Majumder, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the Court below has erred in law as well as in facts having involved thereto in allowing the maintenance @ Rs. 10,000/- per month to be paid by the petitioner. He has further submitted that the Court below ought to have considered the fact the petitioner has lost his job as per order dated 09.09.2020 passed by the disciplinary authority. He has neither any permanent source of income as a Govt. employee nor he has been engaged in any private concern. It has been further contended that the Court below under misconception of law has issued the distress warrant of the moveable properties of the petitioner due to non-payment of huge arrear of maintenance allowance as because at the time of passing the said order dated 30.05.2022 the Court blow has held that the distress warrant was already issued for realization of arrear maintenance so it would not be proper to cancel the same for written objection to be filed by the petitioner-husband. 11. 11. After hearing the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-husband, this Court has no hesitation to reject the argument of the counsel for the petitioner and thus, upheld the order passed by the Court below. 12. Hence, this Court finds no infirmity in the findings arrived at by both the Courts below. Since the petitioner herein has failed to make out his case before the Court below, this Court has no hesitation to say that in the revision, appreciation of the factual issues are not permissible. Accordingly, the instant revision petition stands dismissed. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.