TRHC010000812025

2026:THC:1063

HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA

AGARTALA

Crl. Rev. Pet. No.09 of 2025

Smt. Dipanwita Debnath (age 20+) ,

Daughter of Radharaman Debnath,

Address- Baishnabi Char, Jamjuri,

PO- Jamjuri, PS-Kakraban, Udaipur,

Gomati District.

…. Wife Revision Petitioner

Versus

Sri Paritosh Debnath (age 40+) ,

S/o- Kalipada Debnath,

Address- Mahashakti, Vidyasagar,

PO- Agartala College, PS- East Agartala,

District- West Tripura.

…….Husband-Respondent

Crl. Rev. Pet. No.21 of 2025

Sri Paritosh Debnath (aged about 40 years) ,

Son of Kalipada Debnath,

Resident of Mahashakti, Vidyasagar,

P.O.- Agartala College, P.S.- East Agartala,

District- West Tripura, PIN-799003.

…. Petitioner

Versus

1. Smt. Dipanwita Debnath ,

Wife of Sri Paritosh Debnath,

Daugther of Sri Radharaman Debnath,

Resident of Baishnabi Char, Jamjuri,

P.O.- Jamjuri, P.S.- Kakraban,

District- Gomati, Tripura.

2. The State of Tripura.

……. Respondent s

In Crl. Rev. Pet. No.09 of 2025

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Abir Baran, Adv.

Mr. Akash Pal, Adv.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sankar Lodh, Adv.

In Crl. Rev. Pet. No.21 of 2025

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sankar Lodh, Adv.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Soumyadeep Saha, Addl. P.P.

Mr. Abir Baran, Adv.

Page 2 of 16

Date of Hearing : 28.07.2026

Date of delivery of

Judgment and Order : 05.08.2026

Whether fit for

Reporting : YES

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BISWAJIT PALIT

Judgment & Order

Both the criminal revision petitions are taken up

together for hearing and dismissal by this common judgment

as both the petitions have arisen out of common judgment and

order.

02. The Criminal Revision Petition No.09 of 2025 has

been filed by the petitioner-wife for enhancement of the

amount of maintenance awarded by the Learned Trial Court

and the Criminal Revision Petition No.21 of 2025 has been filed

by the husband for setting aside the order of maintenance

granted by the Learned Judge, Family Court, Udaipur, Gomati

District, Tripura dated 16.12.2024 in connection with Criminal

Misc. No.123 of 2022.

03. Heard Learned Counsel, Mr. A. Baran appearing on

behalf of the petitioner-wife in Crl. Rev. Pet. No.09 of 2025 and

respondent-wife in Crl. Rev. Pet. No.21 of 2025 (hereinafter

referred to as petitioner-wife). Also heard Learned Counsel, Mr.

S. Lodh appearing on behalf of the respondent-husband in Crl.

Rev. Pet. No.09 of 2025 and petitioner-husband in Crl. Rev.

Pet. No.21 of 2025 (hereinafter referred to as respondent-

husband).

Page 3 of 16

04. Now, let us discuss herein below the respective

contention of the parties before the Learned Judge, Family

Court, Udaipur, Gomati District, Tripura.

The petitioner-wife Smt. Dipanwita Debnath filed

one case before the Learned Judge, Family Court , Udaipur,

Gomati District, Tripura with an assertion that her marriage

was solemnized with respondent-husband Paritosh Debnath on

2022 in the paternal house of the petitioner-wife as per Hindu

Marriage Rites and Customs. But from the very beginning of

her matrimonial life with the respondent-husband that she was

ignored by her husband and faced in difference from him. Even

the respondent-husband refused to go to her parental house

after ‘Bou Bhat’ ceremony for two days as per local custom.

05. Being disturbed by such behavior of respondent -

husband the father of the petitioner -wife went to her

matrimonial home and brought her to his house on 01.10.2022

on the day of ‘Shasthi of Durga Puja’. During the period of stay

of the petitioner-wife at her matrimonial home the respondent-

husband used to come late at night and refused to share bed

with her. The respondent-husband also refused to use the gifts

received by the petitioner-wife in her marriage such as

furniture and utensils.

06. The father of the petitioner-wife contacted the

respondent-husband over telephone and requested him to

come to his house to take the petitioner -wife back to her

matrimonial home. As a result, on 10.10.2022 the respondent-

Page 4 of 16

husband went to his parents-in-laws’ house and brought her

back to his house. But the respondent-husband did not change

his attitude and behavior towards the petitioner-wife and again

started coming home late at night after taking his dinner

outside. Then the petitioner-wife raised the matter before the

parents of the respondent-husband but his parents advised the

petitioner-wife to adjust with the lifestyle of the respondent-

husband. The petitioner-wife did not have any mobile phone

and as such she could not contact her parents. However, being

worried about the disturbed mental condition and marital life of

the petitioner-wife, the father of the petitioner-wife came to

her matrimonial home on 19.10.2022 and too k her away to his

house for few days making a request to the respondent-

husband to come to his house to give consolation to the

petitioner-wife. But the respondent-husband had been showing

indifferent towards the petitioner-wife as well as his obligation

towards the marital life.

07. The petitioner-wife was willing to restore and lead a

peaceful conjugal life but the respondent -husband was

reluctant. Rather the respondent -husband expressly and

impliedly communicated that he was not ready to have a

conjugal life with the petitioner-wife. Due to the mental

harassment, the petitioner-wife left her matrimonial home and

took shelter at her paternal house. It was further asserted that

the respondent-husband was earning Rs.30,000/- (Rupees

Page 5 of 16

Thirty Thousand only) per month and she claimed maintenance

accordingly.

08. The respondent-husband is the petitioner in Crl.

Rev. Pet. No.21 of 2025 before the Learned Trial Court

contested the same denying the assertion s of the petitioner-

wife in the petition by filing written objection and it was

asserted that the petitioner-wife misbehaved and quarreled

with the respondent-husband and maintained illicit relation

with another person. The respondent-husband also denied the

allegation that he did not pay visit to the residence of his

father-in-law.

09. It was further asserted by the respondent-husband

that the petitioner-wife voluntarily left his house on 19.10.2022

without any reason and without informing the respondent -

husband and his family members and inspite of his efforts she

did not come back. He also submitted that he is a Group -C

employee of Tripura Legislative Assembly, Agartala. He further

submitted that the petitioner-wife is having adulterous relation

with another person which caused harassment to the

respondent-husband. It was further submitted that the

petitioner-wife was indifferent to household works and also

behaved in indecent manner to the family members of the

respondent-husband. So, the respondent-husband prayed for

dismissal of the criminal revision petition.

Page 6 of 16

10. Learned Judge, Family Court , Udaipur, Gomati

District, Tripura framed the following four point s for

consideration of the petitioner-wife:-

(1) Whether the petitioner is the legally married wife of

the OP?

(2) Whether the petitioner has any valid reason of not

staying with the OP?

(3) Whether the petitioner is entitled to get

maintenance?

(4) What should be the quantum of maintenance, if

allowed?

Both the parties adduced evidence on record before

the Learned Judge, Family Court and finally by the judgment

and order dated 16.12.2024 Learned Judge, Family Court,

Udaipur, Gomati District, Tripura allowed the petition for

maintenance filed by the petitioner-wife.

11. At the time of hearing, Learned Counsel for the

petitioner-wife drawn the attention of the Court referring Para

No.11 of the written objection wherein it has been specifically

stated by the respondent-husband that after the marriage, the

respondent-husband could know the petitioner -wife has/had

relationship with another person and after marriage she

continued her illicit relation and when the respondent-husband

came to know the matter then the petitioner -wife started

quarrel with him and ultimately harassed the respondent -

husband.

Referring the said paragraph of written objection

filed by the respondent-husband, Learned Counsel for the

petitioner-wife drawn the attention of the Court that before the

Page 7 of 16

Learned Judge, Family Court the respondent-husband could not

prove that allegation which also amounts to cruelty and

furthermore the act and conduct and the respondent -husband

shows that the respondent-husband refused and neglected to

take care and provide maintenance to the petitioner-wife.

12. It was further submitted by Learned Counsel for the

petitioner-wife referring the cross-examination of the

respondent-husband wherein he admitted before the Learned

Judge, Family Court, Udaipur, Gomati District, Tripura that his

monthly salary is Rs.48,256/-.

Referring the same, Learned Counsel submitted that

before the Learned Judge, Family Court although the

petitioner-wife could not produce any monthly income

certificate of the respondent -husband but since the

respondent-husband himself admitted that he was earning

Rs.48,256/- and he is a Government Servant attached to

Tripura Legislative Assembly. So the Learned Court below

without considering the same only awarded Rs.1500/ - (Rupees

Fifteen Hundred only) as maintenance to the petitioner-wife

which was too less for survival of the petitioner -wife and

beyond the established guidelines.

13. It was further submitted that Learned Counsel for

the respondent-husband may draw the attention of the Court

that there was a decree of restitution of conjugal rights which

was filed by the respondent-husband against the petitioner-

wife but for that decree there is no scope to deny the

Page 8 of 16

maintenance if claims by the petitioner-wife. In this regard,

Learned Counsel drawn the attention of the Court referring one

judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Rina

Kumari alias Rina Devi alias Reena Vs. Dinesh Kumar

Mahto alias Dinesh Kumar Mahato and Another reported

in (2025) 3 SCC 33 in Para Nos.1, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 18, 21,

41 and submitted that the observation made by the Hon’ble

Supreme Court squarely covers the case of the petitioner-wife

and urged for enhancement of the award of maintenance

awarded by the Learned Trial Court. The aforesaid para

numbers of the citation are narrated herein below:-

“1. ………. Will a husband, who secures a decree for

restitution of conjugal rights, stand absolved of paying

maintenance to his wife by virtue of Section 125(4) of

the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, if his wife refuses

to abide by the said decree and return to the matrimonial

home?

10. On the same lines, in Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai :

(2008) 2 SCC 316, this Court observed that the object of

maintenance proceedings is not to punish a person for

his neglect but to prevent the vagrancy and destitution of

a deserted wife, by providing her food, clothing and

shelter by a speedy remedy. It was held that Section 125

CrPC is a measure of social justice, especially enacted to

protect women and children, falling within the

constitutional sweep of Article 15(3) reinforced by Article

39 of the Constitution. Thus, the objective of the

provision, then and now, is to alleviate the financial

plight of destitute wives, children and now, parents, who

are left to fend for themselves.

11. In Bhuwan Moha n Singh v. Meena : (2015) 6

SCC 353, this Court observed that Section 125 CrPC was

conceived to ameliorate the agony, anguish and financial

suffering of a woman, who left her matrimonial home for

the reasons provided in the provision, so that some

suitable arrangement can be made by the Court and she

can sustain herself and also her children, if they are with

her. It was held that the concept of sustenance did not

necessarily mean “to lead the life of an animal, feel like

an unperson to be thrown away from grace and roam for

her basic maintenance somewhere else” and the wife

would be entitled in law to lead a life in a similar manner

as she would have lived in the house of her husband. This

Court further cautioned that, in a proceeding of this

Page 9 of 16

nature, the hu sband cannot be permitted to take

subterfuge to deprive the wife of the benefits of living

with dignity and there could be no escape route, unless

there is an order from the Court that the wife is not

entitled to get maintenance from the husband on legally

permissible grounds.

12. Earlier, in Badshah v. Urmila Badshah Godse :

(2014) 1 SCC 188, this Court held that the provision of

maintenance aims at empowering the destitute and

achieving social justice or equality and dignity of the

individual and while dealing with cases thereunder, the

drift in the approach from adversarial litigation to social

context adjudication is the need of the hour.

13. More recently, in Rajnesh v. Neha: (2021) 2 SCC

324, this Court emphasized that maintenance laws were

enacted as a measure of social justice to provide

recourse to dependent wives and children for their

financial support, so as to prevent them from falling into

destitution and vagrancy.

14. In Shamima Farooqui vs. Shahid Khan : (2015)

5 SCC 705, this Court noted that the inherent and

fundamental principle behind Section 125 CrPC is the

amelioration of the financial state of affairs as well as the

mental agony and anguish that a woman suffers when

she is compelled to leave her matrimonial home. It was

further observed that, as per law, she is entitled to lead

life in a similar manner as she would have lived in the

house of her husband and as long as she is held entitled

to grant of maintenance within the parameters of Section

125 CrPC, it has to be adequate so that she can live with

dignity. Lastly, it was noted that, a plea is sometimes

advanced by the husband that he does not have the

means to pay as he does not have a job or his business is

not doing well, but these are only bald excuses and, in

fact, they have no acceptability in law as a husband, who

is healthy, able-bodied and in a position to support

himself is under a legal obligation to support his wife and

her right to receive maintenance under Section 125 CrPC,

unless disqualified, is an absolute right.

18. In Sampuran Singh v. Gurdev Kaur : 1985 SCC

OnLine P&H 44, the Punjab and Haryana High Court

observed that a wife can still claim maintenance in the

presence of a decree for restitution of conjugal rights if

the conduct of the husband is such that it obstructs her

from obeying the decree.

21. In Subal Das v. Mousumi Saha : 2017 SCC

OnLine Tri 175, the Tripura High Court held that a wife

who refuses to comply with a decree for restitution of

conjugal rights cannot be deprived of maintenance under

Section 125(4) CrPC. It was observed that it would be

incongruent to assume that a wife against whom a

decree for restitution has been passed is disentitled to

maintenance while a wife who has been divorced can still

claim the same. It was further observe d that the civil

court’s judgment for restitution can only be treated as

relevant evidentiary material but the conduct of the wife

Page 10 of 16

i.e. whether she had sufficient reason to refuse to live

with the husband, has to be assessed by the Magistrate

and only thereafter, it could be decided whether she

would be entitled to maintenance or not. It was

concluded that the restriction imposed by Section 125(4)

CrPC had been substantially diluted, if not virtually

negated.

41. The reason for this is not far to gather. In

Rohtash Singh v. Ramendri : (2000) 3 SCC 180, this Court

clarified that a wife, who suffered a decree of divorce on

the ground of deserting her husband, would not be

entitled to maintenance under Section 125 CrPC as long

as the marriage subsisted, but s he would be entitled to

such maintenance once she attained the status of a

divorced wife, in the light of the definition of a “wife” in

Explanation (b) of Section 125(1) CrPC. Dinesh,

therefore, sought to protect himself from a claim by

Reena for maintenan ce by projecting the disobeyed

restitution decree as a defence and as long as she did not

attain the status of a divorced wife, that protection would

endure to his benefit. This stalemate of sorts created by

Dinesh clearly reflects his lack of bona fides a nd

demonstrates his attempt to disown all responsibility

towards his wife, Reena. These factors, taken

cumulatively, clearly manifest that Reena had more than

sufficient reason to stay away from the society of her

husband, Dinesh, and her refusal to live w ith him,

notwithstanding the passing of a decree for restitution of

conjugal rights, therefore, cannot be hel d against her. In

consequence, the disqualification under Section 125(4)

CrPC was not attracted and the High Court erred

grievously in applying the same and holding that Reena

was not entitled to the maintenance granted to her by

the Family Court.”

14. On the other hand, Learned Counsel, Mr. S. Lodh

appearing on behalf of the respondent -husband drawn the

attention of the Court that the petitioner-wife stayed at her

matrimonial home for a period of less than two months and

during that period she left her matrimonial home without

consulting her husband and his family members often on even

the petitioner-wife before the Learned Trial Court could not

adduce any satisfactory evidence that she was subjected to

mental and physical cruelty by the respondent -husband and

furthermore since the petitioner-wife has voluntarily left her

matrimonial home, so in view of Section 125(4) of Cr.P.C. she

Page 11 of 16

was not entitled to get any maintenance from her husband and

urged before the Court to set aside the order of maintenance

passed by Learned Judge, Family Court as the Learned Trial

Court failed to appreciate the evidence on record..

15. Heard both the parties at length and perused the

judgment of the Learned Trial Court as well as the evidence on

record very carefully.

There is no dispute on record that the petitioner-

wife Dipanwita Debnath is the legally married wife of Paritosh

Debnath. The respondent -husband also did not raise any

dispute of his marriage with the petitioner-wife.

16. From the judgment of the Learned Trial Court and

also from the evidence on record it appears that, the main

dispute arose amongst the party on the ground of maintaining

alleged illicit relation by the petitioner-wife with another

person. Because the respon dent-husband in his written

objection also raised this plea but unfortunately he could not

prove that allegation before the Learned Trial Court which

amounts to cruelty and furthermore, although the petitioner -

wife stayed at her matrimonial home for a very limited period

of time but it appears that the act and conduct of the

respondent-husband was not at all conducive for resumption

of her conjugal life with the respondent -husband at her

matrimonial home for a long period where the integrity and

chastity of the petitioner-wife was doubted by the respondent-

husband.

Page 12 of 16

17. Learned Counsel for the respondent-husband also

tried to drawn the attention of the Court that there was a

decree of restitution of conjugal rights in favour of the

respondent-husband but inspite of decree the petitioner-wife

did not resume her conjugal life with the respondent-husband

at her matrimonial home. So in summing up Learned Counsel

for the respondent-husband urged before the Court to set aside

the order of maintenance awarded by the Learned Trial Court.

18. As already stated, there is no dispute on record in

respect of the fact of marriage of the petitioner-wife by the

respondent-husband. It is also on record that, the petitioner-

wife stayed at her matrimonial home for a very limited period

and during that period she also came to her parental home on

the ground of raising question of chastity by the respondent-

husband about her and also on th at ground the respondent-

husband failed to maintain the marital obligation soon after the

marriage which compelled the petitioner -wife to leave her

matrimonial home. Even it is on record that the respondent-

husband sometimes used to come back to residence at late

night and failed to take proper care of the petitioner-wife and

furthermore the respondent-husband also failed to provide

maintenance to her. Even the parents of respondent -husband

inpsite of giving any consolation to the petitioner-wife advised

to adjust with the respondent-husband regarding his returning

back home at late night. Since, the respondent-husband in his

objection specifically asserted that the petitioner-wife had

Page 13 of 16

developed illicit relation with another person which he has

failed to establish before the Learned Trial Court by adducing

any convincing materials on record. Thus, it appears to this

Court that, this allegation itself is a ground of serious mental

cruelty upon the petitioner -wife by her husband and

furthermore, since the respondent-husband failed to satisfy

this Court showing any evidence on record that he has fulfilled

the marital obligation towards his wife. So, in my considered

view after considering the materials on record, Learned Trial

Court rightly decided the petition in favour of the petitioner-

wife and determined all the aforesaid points in favour of the

petitioner-wife. But surprisingly the Learned Trial Court only

awarded maintenance @ Rs.1500/ - per month which according

to this Court was too less and contrary to the observation

made by the Hon’ble Apex Court. In this regard, Hon’ble the

Supreme Court in Rajnesh Vs. Neha and Ors. in SLP(Crl.)

No.9503 of 2018 observed that the object of granting

interim/permanent alimony is to ensure that the dependent

spouse is not reduced to destitution or vagrancy on account of

the failure of the marriage, and not as a punishment to the

other spouse. There is no straitjacket formula for fixing the

quantum of maintenance to be awarded.

The factors which would weigh with the Court inter

alia are the status of the parties; reasonable needs of the wife

and dependent children; whether the Applicant is educated and

professionally qualified; whether the Applicant has any

Page 14 of 16

independent source of income; whether the income is sufficient

to enable her to maintain the same standard of living as she

was accustomed to in her matrimonial home; whether the

Applicant was employed prior to her marriage; whether she

was working during the subsistence of the marriage; whether

the wife was required to sacrifice h er employment

opportunities for nurturing the family, child rearing, and

looking after adult members of the family; reasonable costs of

litigation for a non-working wife : (2011) 13 SCC 112.

19. Here in the case at hand, there is no evidence on

record that the petitioner-wife is serving or earning anything.

Rather it is on record that the respondent-husband was earning

Rs.48,256/- at the time of recording evidence by the Learned

Trial Court. But surprisingly, it is not clear as to how the

Learned Trial Judge has determined the amount of

maintenance of Rs.1500/ - in favour of the petitioner-wife

without considering her status and standard of living. Since,

the respondent-husband has failed to project any case for

invoking of Section 125(4) of Cr.P.C. before the Learned Trial

Court and at the time of hearing also Learned Counsel for the

respondent-husband could not place any material before this

Court to apply the same provision in deciding this revision

petition. So, after hearing both the parties it appears to this

Court that the order passed by the Learned Judge, Family

Court needs to be interfered with and the amount of

Page 15 of 16

maintenance awarded in favour of the petitioner-wife needs to

be enhanced.

20. In the result, the criminal revision petition [Crl. Rev.

Pet. 09 of 2025] filed by the petitioner-wife is allowed and the

criminal revision petition [Crl. Rev. Pet. 21 of 2025] filed by

the respondent-husband stands rejected being devoid of merit.

The petitioner-wife is entitled to get maintenance

@Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) per month from

the respondent-husband w.e.f. 09.11.2022.

The amount of maintenance already been paid by

the respondent-husband in favour of the petitioner-wife shall

be deducted from the amount of maintenance awarded b y this

Court. The arrear of maintenance w.e.f. 09.11.2022 to July,

2026 shall be paid by the respondent-husband in favour of the

petitioner in 50 (fifty) equal installments after deducting the

amount of maintenance if already been paid. The maintenance

allowance for the month of August, 2026 onwards shall be

directly paid to the respective bank account of the petitioner-

wife by the respondent-husband as ordered in the judgment

dated 16.12.2024.

With these observations, these criminal revision

petitions stands disposed of.

Pending application/s, if any, also stands disposed

of.

Send down the record to the Learned Trial Court

along with a copy of this judgment/order.

Page 16 of 16

Also a copy of this judgment/order be supplied to

Learned Counsels of both the parties at free of cost.

JUDGE

Amrita