Page 1 of 3

HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
MAT. APP. NO.10 OF 2019

Sri Debasish Chakraborty,
S/O Late Nikhil Chakraborty,
R/O North Colony,
Quarter No.A112, ONGC Complex,
P.O. ONGC, P.S. Amtali,
District-West Tripura.
—-Appellant
Versus
Smt. Soma Bhattacharjee,
W/O Debasish Chakraborty,
R/O Gandhigram,
Near School Tilla,
P.S. Airport, P.O. Airport,
District-West Tripura.
—-Respondent

For appellant(s) : Mr. Arijit Bhowmik, Advocate
For respondent(s) : Mr. H.K. Bhowmik, Advocate
Date of Order : 29.05.2019

HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJAY KAROL
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM LODH

ORDER

(Lodh, J)

This is an appeal under Section 19(1) of the Family

Courts Act, 1984 assailing the judgment and order dated

14.01.2019, passed in Civil Misc. No.95 of 2018, arising out of

T.S.(Divorce) No.251 of 2018, by the learned Judge, Family court,

Agartala, West Tripura, whereby the learned Court below directed

the appellant to pay maintenance of Rs.8,000/- per month and

litigation cost of Rs.5,000/- to the respondent.
Page 2 of 3

2. Heard Mr. Arijit Bhowmik, learned counsel appearing

for the appellant-husband as well as Mr. H. K. Bhowmik, learned

counsel appearing for the respondent-wife.

3. The main grievance of the appellant-husband is that

though the appellant is an employee of ONGC, Tripura, Agartala

and having salary of Rs.39,649/-, but, he receives only

Rs.19,338/- after various automatic deductions, amounting to

Rs.20,311/-. In this situation, the learned Judge, Family Court has

passed an order as stated above directing the appellant-husband

to pay maintenance pendente lite of Rs.8,000/- to the respondent-

wife. Learned counsel for the appellant has prayed for reducing

the maintenance allowance.

4. Per contra, Mr. H.K. Bhowmik, learned counsel

appearing for the respondent-wife has submitted that considering

the prevalent market and sky-high rise of prices in essential

commodities, even Rs.8,000/- is very minimum to lead a dignified

life, which is one of the essential features of SectionArticle 21 of the

Constitution of India.

5. We have perused the evidence on record and the

findings of the learned Judge, Family Court. We find that the wife-

respondent at present is staying in her parents’ house as she was

forced to stay over there. We also find that there are so many

bald allegations levelled against the wife-respondent that the

respondent-wife was not interested in having sex/physical relation

with the appellant-husband. Further, it has been alleged that the
Page 3 of 3

respondent-wife threatened the appellant-husband to commit

suicide.

6. We have perused the evidence led by the parties.

According to us, these allegations are not substantiated by cogent

evidence. These are the normal wear and tear of a marital life and

for this the wife should not be forced to be separated from the

appellant-husband. The wife is entitled to lead a life at par the

standard of the husband.

7. Having considered all aspects, we are not inclined to

interfere with the order passed by the learned Judge, Family Court

and, accordingly, the instant appeal is dismissed.

(ARINDAM LODH, J) (SANJAY KAROL, CJ)