1 4
Page of
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
CRL.REV.P NO.44 OF 2023
Sri Swapan Chakma
Petitioner(s)
……
Versus
The State of Tripura and ors.
.......Respondent(s)
For the Petitioner(s) : Ms. R. Guha, Advocate.
Ms. S. Nath, Advocate.
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. S. Ghosh, Addl.P.P.
Mr. S. Datta, Advocate.
Mr. S. Banik, Advocate.
Date of hearing and delivery of
Judgment & Order : 28.06.2024
Whether fit for reporting : YES/NO.
CE T. AMARNATH GOUD
HON’BLE MR. JUSTI
J U D G M E N T & O R D E R(ORAL)
This present criminal revision petitioner has been filed
under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 by the
petitioner herein against the impugned Order passed on 17.12.2022
by the learned Court of Family Judge, Agartala, West Tripura in
connection with Case No.CRL.Misc.171 of 2021.
2. Heard Ms. R. Guha, learned counsel assisted by Ms. S.
Nath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr.S.
Ghosh, learned Addl. P.P., appearing for the State-respondent as
2 4
Page of
well as Mr.S. Datta learned counsel and Mr. S. Banik, learned
counsel appearing for the private respondent.
3. Ms. Guha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-
husband submits that the Court below while awarding the
maintenance allowance directed the petitioner-husband to pay Rs.
25,000/- per month to the respondent-wife w.e.f. 15.03.2021. The
petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the Court below to pay the
said amount w.e.f.15.03.2021, as because, the amount has become
quite a lump sum and due to the economic hardship and burden
faced by the petitioner-husband, he is not able to pay the same.
Further, the portion of the Order has been passed without the
opposite party seeking any interim prayer. The learned Court below
also failed to appreciate the fact that respondent No.2 is still staying
in the house of the petitioner.
To support her argument, learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner referred to Para-25 of the Judgment of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court reported in AIR 1975 SC 915 titled as
Ramchandra Keshab Adke(Dead) by Lrs. Vs. Govind Joti
Chavare and ors., which is produced herein:-
“where indeed, the whole aim and ob- ject of the legislature would be plainly
defeated if the command to do the thing in a particular manner did not imply a prohibition to do
it in any other. Maxwell’s Interpretation of Statutes, 11th Edn.pp.362-363. "The rule will be
attracted with full force in the present case, because non- verification of the surrender in the
requisite manner would frustrate the very purpose of this provision. Intention of the legislature
to pro- hibit the verification of the surrender in a man- ner other than the one prescribed is
implied in these provisions. Failure to comply with these mandatory provisions, therefore had
vitiated the surrender and rendered it non est for the pur- pose of S. 5 (3) (b). “
3 4
Page of
To strengthen his argument, learned counsel also referred to
AIR
another Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in
1952 SC 16 titled as Commissioner of Police, Bombay Vs.
Gordhandas Bhanji.
4. On the other hand, Mr. S. Banik, learned counsel
appearing for the respondent submits that the Judgment and Order
as passed by the Court below is just and proper. To support his
argument, he referred to Para-111
of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324 titled as Rajnesh Vs. Neha and
anr. The same is produced here-in-under:-
“The rationale of granting maintenance from the date of application to the date of finds
its roots in the object of enacting maintenance legislations, so as to enable wife to
overcome the financial crunch which occurs on separation from husband. Financial
constraints of a dependent spouse hamper their capacity be effectively represented before
the court. In order to prevent a dependant from being reduced to destitution, it is
necessary that maintenance is awarded from the date on which the application for
maintenance is filed before the court concerned.”
5. Heard and perused the evidence on record.
6. Once a litigant comes to a Court with her prayer for
justice, it is the prerogative of the Court to pass an appropriate
Order for the sake of Justice. The learned Court below directed the
impugned maintenance allowance in the interest of the party
concerned and this Court in terms of the factual aspect of this case
is of the opinion that respondent No.2 is entitled to the said
maintenance allowance. Once it falls due, any maintenance or
compensation granted by the Court is to be paid from the period on
which it is due. Further, the Judgments as referred by the learned
4 4
Page of
counsel appearing for the petitioner are not relevant to the facts of
the case.
7. In the midst of the argument, learned counsel appearing
for the petitioner submitted before this Court that in the earlier
round of litigation in Criminal Petition No.26 of 2022, which was
decided by this Court between the parties herein, the wife
respondent as petitioner herein approached the Hon’ble Supreme
Court and the Hon’ble Apex Court has set aside the order of the
this Court by Order dated 04.01.2023. But on perusal of the said
order of the Hon’ble Apex Court, passed in Special Leave
Petition(Criminal) Dairy No(s). 35270/2022, preferred by
petitioner Sri Swapan Chakma, the same reveals thus:-
“Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the material placed
on record, though, we are not persuaded to consider interference in this matter against
the order passed by the High Court declining the prayer of the petitioner for quashing of
the criminal proceedings but, in the circumstances, we deem it appropriate to observe that
the observations occurring in the order impugned by the High Court shall be read as
confined to its consideration of the prayer for quashing and not beyond. In other words,
such observations may not be taken decisive by the Trial Court while proceeding further
with the matter and deciding the same finally.
Subject to the observations foregoing, this petition stands dismissed.
Pending applications also stands disposed of.
8. Hence in terms of the above facts and circumstances,
this present petition stands dismissed. Stay if any stands vacated.
Pending application(s), if any also stands closed.
JUDGE
suhanjit
RAJKUMAR Digitally signed by
RAJKUMAR
SUHANJIT
SUHANJIT SINGHA
Date: 2024.07.02
SINGHA
14:06:09 +05'30'