Tripura High Court Upholds Interim Maintenance To Wife, Says Man Cannot Benefit From Suppressing Existing Marriage
The Tripura High Court has upheld an order granting ₹15,000 per month as interim maintenance to a woman who alleged that the man had represented himself as divorced and subsequently married her.
The Court, while noting that the issue of marriage was yet to be finally determined by the Family Court, observed prima facie that the parties had maintained a marital relationship for a considerable period and that the man had “duped the respondent by suppressing” his relationship with his first wife.
Justice Biswajit Palit noted that: “The husband duped the respondent by suppressing the fact of his relationship with Shipra Saha as husband and wife. Thus, at this stage, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and since the original petition is still pending for disposal, this Court…is of the view that there is no infirmity in the order…granting interim maintenance.”
Background:
The respondent had been working at the petitioner's garment shop since 2008. She alleged that the petitioner, who was already married, represented to her that he had divorced his first wife and subsequently married her at Kalighat Temple, Kolkata, in November 2012. She claimed that they thereafter lived together as husband and wife until he deserted her in 2022.
She subsequently filed a maintenance petition under Section 125 CrPC, in which the Family Court granted her interim maintenance of ₹15,000 per month. The petitioner challenged the said order before the Tripura High Court.
The High Court noted that the question of the petitioner's marriage with the respondent was yet to be determined by the Family Court in the main proceeding and, therefore, confined its consideration to the interim maintenance order.
The Court further noted that although the petitioner denied marrying the respondent at Kalighat Temple in 2012, he had not produced any marriage certificate or independent evidence to substantiate his contention. At the same time, he had admitted travelling with the respondent, the photographs placed by her, and spending ₹20 lakh towards the education of her son.
The Court found that, prima facie, the parties had maintained a relationship for a considerable period, resided together as husband and wife and travelled to different places together. It further observed that the petitioner had represented to the respondent that his marriage with Shipra Saha had ended in divorce and held that “he duped the respondent by suppressing the fact of his relationship with Shipra Saha as husband and wife.”
Accordingly, without expressing any final opinion on the merits of the main maintenance proceeding, the Court held that there was no infirmity in the Family Court's order granting interim maintenance of ₹15,000 per month.
It consequently rejected the revision petition and directed the Family Court to dispose of the main proceeding at the earliest, uninfluenced by the observations made by the High Court.
Case Name: G v/s B
Case No.: Crl. Rev. P. No.58 of 2025
Date of Decision: 10.09.2026