Tripura High Court Sets Aside Family Court Order Denying Interim Maintenance To Wife, Says Court Must Protect Deserted Women
The Tripura High Court has set aside a Family Court order rejecting a wife's plea for interim maintenance, observing that the trial court failed to appreciate the purpose and object of maintenance provisions intended to protect deserted and distressed women.
The Court held that the Family Court had incorrectly concluded, without recording evidence, that the wife had voluntarily left the matrimonial home. The High Court consequently directed the husband to pay ₹8,000 per month as interim maintenance to the wife until disposal of the main maintenance petition.
Justice Biswajit Palit remarked that:“So, after hearing both the sides, it appears that the Learned Trial Court at the time of passing order has failed to appreciate the very purpose and object of the provision which has been prescribed by the legislature for protection of the deserted and distressed lady.”
Background
The petitioner-wife, Meghalee Debnath, filed a maintenance petition against her husband, Mrinmoy Debnath, alleging that she was subjected to physical cruelty by him and his family members, compelling her to leave the matrimonial home. She claimed that her husband earned approximately ₹80,000 per month through his business and private tuition, while she had no independent source of income.
The Family Court, Agartala, rejected her application for interim maintenance on April 8, 2026, holding that she had voluntarily left the matrimonial home without sufficient reason. Aggrieved by the order, the wife approached the Tripura High Court challenging the denial of interim maintenance.
The Tripura High Court observed that the Family Court had incorrectly concluded, without recording evidence, that the wife had voluntarily left the matrimonial home. It noted that the husband had not disputed the marriage or adequately explained his alleged monthly income of ₹80,000, while there was no prima facie evidence that the wife was earning.
The Court reiterated that maintenance proceedings are summary in nature and need not involve an examination of the minute details of matrimonial disputes. Holding that the Family Court had failed to appreciate the object of maintenance provisions, the High Court set aside the impugned order and directed the husband to pay ₹8,000 per month as interim maintenance, including the ₹4,000 already awarded in the domestic violence proceedings.
Date of Decision: 29.09.2026