NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/11431/2018 ORDER DATED: 26/09/2023
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (FOR MAINTENANCE) NO. 11431
of 2018
==========================================================
VINODBHAI VLAJIBHAI CHAVDA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
HCLS COMMITTEE(4998) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR NASIR SAIYED(6145) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR CHINTAN DAVE, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT
Date : 26/09/2023
ORAL ORDER
1. This petition is filed for the following prayers:
"10(A) Your Lordships may be pleased to Admit and allow this Revision petition.
(B) Your lordships may be pleased to allow this petition by quashing and setting aside the order passed by Ld.Principal Judge, family court ahmedabad in CRMA No.326/18 at ex.7 dated 25/9/18 annexed at Annexure A of this petition.
(C) YOUR LORDSHIP MAY pending admission hearing till final disposal of this revision be pleased to stay the further implementation of the order passed by the lower court in Page 1 of 4 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 26 20:49:54 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/11431/2018 ORDER DATED: 26/09/2023 undefined CRMA 326/2018.
(D) xxxxx"
2. Heard learned advocate Mr.Saiyed for the petitioner and learned APP Mr.Dave for the respondent no.1- state.
3. Learned advocate Mr.Saiyed has submitted that the present petition is filed against the order of interim maintenance of Rs.3500/- passed against the present petitioner. He submitted that the present petitioner is earning very meagre amount by running pan shop with his brother and he has no sufficient means to pay such amount. He has further submitted that the respondent wife is also earning but false affidavit is filed by the wife that she is not earning. He has further submitted that the learned trial Court has not considered the FIR being C.R.No.II-3564 of 2018 filed against respondent no.2-wife and her family members. He has further submitted that the respondent no.2 was not living with the family member of the petitioner but she was living with the petitioner for three months with his family. Considering all these aspects, he submitted that the order passed by the learned trial Court of granting interim maintenance of Rs.3500/- is without any basis, unjust, Page 2 of 4 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 26 20:49:54 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/11431/2018 ORDER DATED: 26/09/2023 undefined improper and erroneous and required to be quashed and set aside.
4. Per contra, learned APP has submitted that the learned trial Court has rightly considered all the relevant aspects of income etc. and earning capacity of the respondent and has come to the conclusion that the petitioner is earning Rs.12000-15000/- per month and accordingly after considering the same and other aspects, the Court has awarded Rs.3500/- as the amount towards the interim maintenance, which cannot be said to be without any basis and illegal or unjust or improper as the respondent is legally wedded wife. He, therefore, submitted that no interference is called for in the impugned order and therefore this petition be dismissed.
5. I have considered rival submissions and I have also perused the impugned order. From the impugned order, it transpires that the learned trial Court has given a detailed reasoning while considering the application for the interim maintenance. As the proceeding of Section 125 of Cr.P.C. for getting maintenance is still pending as per the averment made by the petitioner, this Court is of the opinion that any further finding will come in the way of the present petitioner while deciding the said application on merits by the learned trial Court. The learned trial Court has considered the Page 3 of 4 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 26 20:49:54 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/11431/2018 ORDER DATED: 26/09/2023 undefined provisions of Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. and also the judgments in the case of Manharlal Mulchand Gandhi V/s Savitaben Mulchand Gandhi and another, reported in 1993(1) GLR 579 and Amarjit Kaur V/s Harbhajan Singh reported in (2003)10 SCC 228 and other pleadings of the parties and has rightly come to the conclusion that the petitioner must be earning about Rs.12,000/--Rs.15,000/- per month and therefore the trial Court has awarded Rs.3,500/- towards interim maintenance which cannot be said as exorbitant. On the contrary, prima facie, considering the need of the wife in the present case, it seems to be very reasonable and on the lower side. Even otherwise, the petitioner will get opportunity to contest at the time of considering the final amount of maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. by leading proper evidence to establish his income as well as the income of the wife.
6. In view of the above, I am of the opinion that there is no reason to interfere with the findings of the learned trial Court at this stage. Accordingly, this petition is required to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed.
(SANDEEP N. BHATT,J) SRILATHA Page 4 of 4 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 26 20:49:54 IST 2023