Gujarat High Court
Dhavalkumar Ranchhodbhai ... vs State Of Gujarat on 5 August, 2022
Bench: Samir J. Dave
R/CR.RA/186/2022 ORDER DATED: 05/08/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 186 of 2022
==========================================================
DHAVALKUMAR RANCHHODBHAI MARWANIYA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. MAHITOSH U SINGH(7015) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR. MH SHEKHAWAT(7194) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MS. M.H.BHATT, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SAMIR J. DAVE
Date : 05/08/2022
ORAL ORDER
By way of preferring this application, applicant has prayed to
quash and set aside the judgment and order dated 8.1.2020 passed
below Exh. 20 in Criminal Misc. Application No. 2418 of 2018 by
learned Judge, Family Court No.4, Ahmedabad
Heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties.
Learned advocate for the applicant submits that impugned
order is absolutely erroneous, illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and
lacking jurisdiction. That, the Court below has failed to appreciate
the provisions of law in their proper perspective and therefore, the
impugned order is unsustainable in law. That, the findings in the
impugned order against the applicant are not justified in view of the
matter on record of the case. That, impugned order is passed without
R/CR.RA/186/2022 ORDER DATED: 05/08/2022
assigning any cogent reason and the same is unreasoned order. That,
if the application of the applicant filed below Exh. 20 in Cr.M.A No.
2418 of 2018 is not allowed, it will cause irreparable loss to the
applicant and will cause injuries to the applicant. Therefore, it was
requested by learned advocate for the applicant to allow the present
application.
Learned APP for the respondent No.1-State submits that
dispute involved in the present application is matrimonial dispute
and therefore, she has requested to pass necessary orders.
Having heard learned advocates appearing for the respective
parties as well as averments made in the present application, first of
all we have to peruse the provisions of Section 125 of Cr.P.C which
reads as under:-
"125. Order for maintenance of wives, children and parents. (1) If
any person having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain-
(a) his wife, unable to maintain herself, or (b) his legitimate or
illegitimate minor child, whether married or not, unable to
maintain itself, or (c) his legitimate or illegitimate child (not being
a married daughter) who has attained majority, where such child
is, by reason of any physical or mental abnormality or injury
unable to maintain itself, or (d) his father or mother, unable to
maintain himself or herself, a Magistrate of the first class may,
R/CR.RA/186/2022 ORDER DATED: 05/08/2022
upon proof of such neglect or refusal, order such person to make a
monthly allowance for the maintenance of his wife or such child,
father or mother, at such monthly rate not exceeding five hundred
rupees in the whole, as such Magistrate thinks fit, and to pay the
same to such person as the Magistrate may from time to time
direct: Provided that the Magistrate may order the father of a
minor female child referred to in clause (b) to make such
allowance, until she attains her majority, if the Magistrate is
satisfied that the husband of such minor female child, if married, is
not possessed of sufficient means. Explanation.- For the purposes
of this Chapter."
Learned trial Court has observed in the impugned judgment
and order that the application below Exh. 20 for getting stay is not
tenable. From the pleadings of the parties, it is admitted that both the
parties were engaged and solemnized their marriage on 5.2.2018 and
since then, the respondent no.2 is the legally wedded wife of present
applicant and therefore, prima facie the applicant herein is
responsible and liable to pay the maintenance to his legally wedded
wife socially, legally and morally. Hence, the application for getting
stay is not tenable. It is also observed from the pleadings that the
applicant has filed Family Suit No. 2388 of 2018 for getting decree
of divorce on the ground of null and void marriage and it is pending.
R/CR.RA/186/2022 ORDER DATED: 05/08/2022
Therefore, respondent no.2 shall be continued to be the legally
wedded wife of the applicant unless and until the Family Court will
dissolve the marriage between the parties.
It is settled law as well as, as per directions issued by the
various High Courts as well as Hon'ble Apex Court in case of
Rajnesh Vs. Neha (Criminal Appeal No.730 of 2020), it is ethical
duty of the husband to maintain his wife in a manner of living
standard as applicant is living.
Thus, considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this
Court deems it not fit to interfere with the impugned judgment and
order passed by the trial Court and accordingly, present application
deserves to be dismissed and accordingly is hereby dismissed.
Impugned judgment and order dated 8.1.2020 passed below
Exh.20 in Criminal Misc. Application No. 2418 of 2018 by learned
Judge, Family Court No.4, Ahmedabad is hereby confirmed.
No order as to costs. Interim relief, if any, granted earlier
stands vacated. Rule stands discharged.
(SAMIR J. DAVE,J)
BEENA SHAH
