AGARTALA, India, June 15 -- Tripura High Court issued the following order/judgement on May 14:

Heard Learned Counsel, Mr. Suman Bhattacharjee appearing on behalf of the petitioner-husband. Also heard Learned P.P., Mr. Raju Datta appearing on behalf of the respondent-State.

This criminal revision petition is filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 corresponding to Section 438 of the BNSS, 2023 read with Section 442 of the BNSS, 2023 for setting aside the order dated 31.03.2026 passed by Learned Judge, Family Court, South Tripura, Belonia in connection with Maint (ALT) 4 of 2024.

In course of hearing, Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Learned Trial Court without affording any opportunity to cross-examine the PWs has closed the evidence and posted the case for DWs. It is further submitted that inspite of filing adjournment petition, the present petitioner-husband was not given any opportunity resulting which he has been seriously prejudiced. So, Learned Counsel for the petitionerhusband urged for setting aside the said order.

It is further submitted by Learned Counsel for the petitionerhusband that the case was posted for DWs on 17.04.2026. However, on that day, the concerned Presiding Officer was on leave and as such, the next date was fixed on 18.05.2026 for DWs.

Perused the order dated 31.03.2026.

It appears that on 31.03.2026, an adjournment petition was filed before the Learned Trial Court on behalf of the present petitionerhusband which was rejected on the ground that in earlier occasion also the witnesses of the respondent-wife i.e. the petitioner in Maint (Alt) 4 of 2024, was returned back twice without cross-examination. Further, the petitioner-husband also failed to deposit the cost as per order of the Learned Judge, Family Court, South Tripura, Belonia.

Learned Counsel, Mr. Bhattacharjee for the petitioner-husband fairly submitted that an opportunity should be given to the present petitioner-husband to cross-examine the witnesses of the PWs. It is further submitted that the petitioner-husband is ready to deposit the cost imposed by Learned Trial Court and prayed for passing appropriate order.

It appears to this Court that the order dated 31.03.2026 was passed by Learned Trial Court in a proceeding for alteration of maintenance allowance. Without recording evidence it is quite impossible to pass any appropriate order and it would be prudent that at the time of passing of the final order, the Learned Trial Court should peruse the evidence on record.

However, at the same time, it is also true that the conduct of the petitioner-husband, being a Government Servant, was not at all satisfactory.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=I1mmm2bl4r4EREhYK63Kv0cG6ZGJ8FS8ECac0cWN9%2B5gtW8773l%2F3tRITfHKTiCg&caseno=Crl.Rev.P./31/2026&cCode=1&cino=TRHC010008372026&state_code=20&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.