The Tripura HC has set aside a Family Court order rejecting a woman’s maintenance plea, ruling that allegations of adultery were not supported by evidence. Justice Biswajit Palit directed the Family Court in Agartala to rehear the case, allow fresh evidence, and deliver a new judgment within eight months.
the Tripura High Court has set aside an order of the Family Court that had rejected a woman’s application for maintenance and directed the matter to be heard afresh. The High Court observed that there was no evidence on record to support allegations of adultery made against the woman and emphasized the need for a fair adjudication of the dispute.
The judgment was delivered by a single bench of Justice Biswajit Palit while hearing a criminal revision petition filed by the woman challenging the decision of the Additional Judge, Family Court, Agartala. The Family Court had dismissed her maintenance application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) through an order passed on May 23, 2025, in Crl Misc No. 388 of 2022.
According to the petitioner, she married the respondent in January 2011 and subsequently lived with him in Agartala. The couple was blessed with a daughter in October 2013. The woman alleged that after the birth of their child, she was subjected to both physical and mental harassment by her husband and mother-in-law. She further claimed that her husband’s family demanded Rs 2 lakh from her parental home and that she was eventually assaulted and forced to leave her matrimonial home in June 2021.
The respondent-husband, however, denied all allegations made by the petitioner. He maintained that his wife had voluntarily left the matrimonial home without any valid reason. He also alleged that she was involved in an adulterous relationship with another person, which he cited as a reason for opposing her claim for maintenance.
While examining the records, the High Court noted that the husband had admitted both the marriage and the paternity of the couple’s minor daughter. However, the court found that he had failed to substantiate the serious allegation of adultery against his wife.
“There is no evidence on record that the petitioner’s wife was living in adultery,” the court observed while reviewing the findings of the Family Court.
Justice Palit further highlighted that Section 125 of the CrPC is a welfare-oriented and beneficial provision enacted to protect destitute wives and prevent vagrancy. The court stressed that maintenance proceedings should be approached with caution and fairness, particularly when allegations affecting a woman’s entitlement are raised without adequate proof.
The High Court also observed that there was no evidence to suggest that the petitioner possessed sufficient financial means to maintain herself independently. Likewise, there was no material indicating that she had left her husband’s company voluntarily and without reasonable cause.
A significant aspect of the case involved the testimony of an independent witness who stated that he had personally witnessed the petitioner being physically assaulted by her husband and mother-in-law while they were residing in a rented apartment. The High Court noted that the Family Court had chosen to disbelieve this independent witness while placing reliance on the testimony of the husband and his brother.
The court found that such an approach warranted reconsideration. It further held that principles of natural justice required that the petitioner be provided an opportunity to cross-examine the husband and his witness before a final determination of the case.
Taking these factors into account, the High Court set aside the Family Court’s order and remanded the matter back to the Additional Judge, Family Court, Agartala, for fresh adjudication. Both parties have been directed to lead evidence afresh, and the Family Court has been instructed to reconsider the matter in accordance with law.
Importantly, the High Court has directed the Family Court to complete the proceedings and deliver a fresh judgment within eight months from the date of receipt of the High Court’s order.
The court also recorded that although the respondent-husband had previously been represented in the proceedings, he did not appear during the final hearing before the High Court despite being granted sufficient time.
| Also Read: AMC Pushes Urban Devt Through Market Clearance |
The ruling is being viewed as a significant reaffirmation of the protective intent behind maintenance laws and underscores the judiciary’s insistence on evidence-based findings, particularly in cases involving allegations that can affect a woman’s legal entitlement to maintenance.
