The Tripura High Court has upheld an order granting ₹15,000 per month as interim maintenance to a woman whose marital relationship with the petitioner was disputed. Justice Biswajit Palit held that, at the interim stage, the Family Court had not committed any infirmity in granting maintenance. The High Court also clarified that the question of the parties’ marriage would be finally determined in the main maintenance proceeding.
The dispute arose from an order dated 24 July 2025 passed by the Additional Judge, Family Court, Agartala, in a maintenance proceeding. The Family Court had directed payment of ₹15,000 per month as interim maintenance to the respondent woman. The petitioner challenged that order before the High Court through Criminal Revision Petition No. 58 of 2025.
The woman claimed that she had worked at the petitioner’s garment shop and that the parties subsequently developed a relationship. According to her case, the petitioner had represented to the respondent that his earlier marital relationship had ended. She claimed that they thereafter lived together and that their marriage was solemnised at Kalighat Temple, Kolkata, in November 2012.
The petitioner disputed the alleged marriage. He maintained that his earlier marriage continued until the death of his wife in January 2020 and argued that the respondent could not claim maintenance as a legally wedded wife.
Justice Biswajit Palit noted that the main maintenance proceeding was still pending and that the High Court was not deciding the parties’ ultimate matrimonial status at this stage.
The Court took note of several circumstances, including the parties’ admitted association, their travel together, photographs placed before the Family Court and the petitioner’s admitted expenditure of around ₹20 lakh towards the education of the woman’s son.
The High Court also considered the Supreme Court’s ruling in Badshah v. Urmila Badshah Godse, where the Court had adopted a purposive interpretation of the maintenance provision in circumstances where a woman was allegedly kept unaware of a man’s existing marriage.
The High Court observed that, prima facie, the parties had maintained a relationship for a considerable period and had resided together as husband and wife. The Court also noted that they had travelled to different places, taken photographs together and that the petitioner had spent money towards the care and education of the woman’s son.
At the same time, the High Court made clear that these observations were confined to the interim-maintenance issue and would not determine the final outcome of the pending proceeding.
The High Court concluded that there was no infirmity in the Family Court’s order granting interim maintenance. The Court therefore rejected the criminal revision petition.
The Court stated that “there is no infirmity in the order passed by the Learned Additional Judge” granting interim maintenance. It directed the Family Court to decide the main petition at the earliest after giving both sides adequate opportunity to lead evidence, without being influenced by the observations made in the revision proceedings.
Accordingly, the revision petition was rejected, and the matter was disposed of.
Case Title: G v. B
Case Number: Crl. Rev. P. No. 58 of 2025
Judge: Justice Biswajit Palit
Decision Date: 10 September 2026
