Shri Pranab Das vs Smt. Soniya Biswas and Another

Court
Tripura High Court

TRHC010016642025 2026:THC:1276

HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA

Crl.Rev.P No.62 of 2025



Shri Pranab Das,
Son of Shri Prabir Kumar Das,
Resident of village: Sripalli,
East Badharghat,
P.O. & P.S. Amtali,
District: West Tripura,

PIN:799 003
---- Petitioner(s)

-Versus-


1. Smt. Soniya Biswas,
Wife of Shri Pranab Das,
Care of Shri Biswajit Biswas,
Resident of Village: Sripalli,
P.O. Madhuban Dukli, P.S. Amtali,
District: West Tripura, PIN:799 003

Address correction has been done ref Hon’ble
Court’s order dated 10.07.2026 in IA No.2/2026
In Crl.Rev.P. No.62 of 2025

Presently,
Daughter of Shri Biswajit Biswas,
Near Gurukul School, Kathaltali,
P.S. Amtali, P.O. Madhuban,
PIN:799 003, West Tripura

2. The State of Tripura,
Through the Learned Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Tripura, Agartala



---- Respondents(s)

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Tapash Datta Majumder, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Keneth L Darlong, Adv.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Dilip Ch. Nath, Adv.
Mr. Soumyadeep Saha, Addl. P.P.


Date of Hearing

& delivery of
Judgment and Order: 14.09.2026
Whether fit for
Reporting : NO







Page 2 of 7



HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BISWAJIT PALIT
Judgment & Order (Oral)

This petition under Section 397 read with Section
401 of Cr.P.C. and Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act,
1984 is filed challenging the order dated 18.03.2025 passed
by Learned Addl. Judge, Family Court in Crl. Misc.(Int.)
No.110 of 2024 arising out of Crl.Misc. No.108 of 2024.
02. Heard Learned Senior Counsel Mr. T. D.
Majumder assisted by Mr. K. L. Darlong appearing for the
petitioner. Also heard Learned Counsel Mr. D. C. Nath
appearing for the respondent No.1 and further heard
Learned Addl. P.P. Mr. S. Saha appearing for the State.
03. At the time of hearing Learned Senior Counsel for
the petitioner submitted that the respondent-wife filed one
maintenance petition against the present petitioner husband
seeking maintenance and in the main petition a separate
application was filed for granting ad interim maintenance.
Along with the petition an affidavit showing statement of
assets and liability was filed by the respondent-wife
petitioner and similarly a statement was filed by the present
petitioner-husband narrating that he was depending upon
the income of his father. It was further submitted that the
respondent is the wife of the present petitioner husband and
their marriage was solemnized on 10.07.2017 according to
Hindu Marriage Rites and Customs. After that dispute
cropped up amongst the parties and on and from

Page 3 of 7

10.03.2019 the respondent wife petitioner has been staying
separately in the residence of her father. It was further
submitted that she filed one criminal case against her father
in law which was also ended in acquittal and in the said
criminal case she stated that she had good relation with the
present petitioner and she has falsely implicated her father
in law in the said criminal case due to some
misunderstanding. During hearing of that proceeding
nowhere she stated that she had very stain relation with her
husband and the husband refused and neglected to provide
maintenance to her.
04. It was further submitted that thereafter as the
relation could not be developed so both of them submitted
one divorce petition by mutual counsel before the Learned
Family Judge and as per terms and conditions of the petition
she took a sum of Rs.19,00,000/- as permanent alimony.
But after filing of the divorce petition she submitted that as
the amount was not paid as per terms and conditions, so
she has withdrawn herself from the said petition and
ultimately the same petition could not be disposed of but in
this regard she also submitted documents making her
declaration that she has received the entire amount. But
thereafter she did not return back the said amount rather
she filed the maintenance case against her husband. So at
this stage according to Learned Senior Counsel since she
has voluntarily left her matrimonial home, so she has got no
scope to claim for any maintenance and interim

Page 4 of 7

maintenance and Section 125(4) of Cr.P.C. does not permit
the same.
05. On the other hand, Learned Counsel Mr. D. C.
Nath for the respondent wife petitioner submitted that
although it was alleged that Rs.19,00,000/- was given but
factually that amount was not given to her and one cheque
although was given and that was also dishonoured. So the
entire plea of the present petitioner husband is concocted
and fabricated and the Learned Trial Court considering the
same allowed interim maintenance in her favour and there
is no infirmity in the said order. So Learned Counsel urged
for dismissal of the revision petition.

06. Heard both the sides and perused the order of
the Learned Trial Court. The main proceeding is still pending
for disposal.
07. It is the admitted position that since 2019
matrimonial discord is going on amongst the parties. The
respondent-petitioner allegedly filed one case against her
father-in-law which was ultimately ended in acquittal and
before the criminal court she submitted that due to
misunderstanding she filed the case against her father in
law. In the divorce petition also the respondent-petitioner
sworn affidavit stating that she has received the entire
amount from the present petitioner husband although later
on she withdrawn herself from the said petition on the
ground that the terms and conditions of the petition was not
fulfilled and as such no further proceeding took place in the

Page 5 of 7

divorce petition. She also submitted that although she had
given her signature but that was the conspiracy of some of
the persons including some lawyers for which she had given
her signatures.
08. So, after hearing both the sides, it appears that
there is some disputed question of facts amongst the rival
parties. Prima facie in my considered view, there is no scope
to deny that the respondent-wife did not receive any
amount from her husband because by swearing affidavit in
divorce petition which was filed it was admitted that money
was released and she also made her declaration on E-stamp
paper. Now as to whether the respondent-wife received the
amount or not is a matter of adjudication to be decided
either in the original proceeding or in any other case. On
perusal of the interim petition nowhere I find that the said
fact as stated by the respondent-wife petitioner was
mentioned. She only stated that her husband is able bodied
man and his monthly income is Rs.50,000/- per month and
in the petition nowhere she stated that on and from which
date she was refused and neglected to provide maintenance
by the petitioner and the affidavit annexed with the petition
also appears to be incomplete. Rather the petitioner-
husband made same submission to the Learned Trial Court.
Since the contention of the present petitioner husband
needs to be taken into consideration by the Learned Trial
Court in the main proceeding. So in my considered view it
was not proper for the Learned Court to grant ad-interim

Page 6 of 7

maintenance on the prayer of the respondent-wife petitioner
by the order dated 18.03.2025. Since prima facie it is found
that she received a sum of Rs.19,00,000/- from her
husband although she denied the same. But in this regard
she sworn affidavit before the Learned Trial Court in the
mutual divorce petition filed.
09. So considering the facts and circumstances of
this case, at this stage in the considered opinion of this
Court the order dated 18.03.2025 passed by the Learned
Family Judge suffers from infirmities and there was no
immediate necessity for the Learned Trial Court to grant
interim maintenance in favour of the respondent-wife
petitioner since the original case was pending and the
respondent husband i.e. the petitioner herein prima facie by
adducing documentary evidence and record could satisfy the
Court that he has paid a sum of Rs.19,00,000/- to the
respondent-wife petitioner towards permanent alimony.
10. In view of the above, it appears to me that the
order dated 18.03.2025 suffers from perversity and the
same needs to be interfered with and set aside.
In the result, this petition filed by the petitioner
is hereby allowed. The order dated 18.03.2025 passed by
Learned Addl. Judge, Family Court in Crl.Misc.(Int.) No.110
of 2024 is hereby set aside. The Learned Trial Court is
asked to dispose of the main petition within a period of nine
months from the receipt of this copy of this order without
being biased.

Page 7 of 7

Supply a copy of this order to the Learned
Counsel for both the sides.
Send down the record, if any, to the Learned
Trial Court along with a copy of this order.
JUDGE





















MOUMITA
DATTA
Digitally signed by MOUMITA
DATTA
Date: 2026.09.15 15:18:58
+05'30'



Moumita