Gujarat High Court
Pravinbhai Ambalal Parmar vs Jagrutiben W/O Pravinbhai Parmar ... on 30 August, 2022
Bench: Samir J. Dave
R/CR.RA/688/2021 ORDER DATED: 30/08/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 688 of 2021
With
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 177 of 2022
==========================================================
PRAVINBHAI AMBALAL PARMAR
Versus
JAGRUTIBEN W/O PRAVINBHAI PARMAR D/O BHALJIB SOLANKI
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR MILAN R MARUTI(7338) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR NEEL P LAKHANI(10679) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR PM LAKHANI(1326) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MRS R P LAKHANI(3811) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR VAIBHAV A VYAS (2896) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
MR RC KODEKAR APP for the Respondent(s) No. 3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SAMIR J. DAVE
Date : 30/08/2022
ORAL ORDER
1. Both these revision applications arise out of the same
judgment and order and involve identical questions on law and
facts and hence, they are heard together and disposed of by
this common order.
2. Challenge in these revision applications is to the
judgment and order dated 30.07.2021 passed by the Family
R/CR.RA/688/2021 ORDER DATED: 30/08/2022
Court, Gandhinagar in Criminal Misc. Application No.79 of
2020 whereby, the Family Court has awarded monthly
maintenance of Rs.9500/- and Rs.6000/- in favour of the
respondent-wife and respondent-daughter respectively.
3. For the purpose of narration of facts, Criminal Revision
Application No.688 of 2021 is taken as the lead matter.
The marriage between the applicant and respondent No.1
took place on 04.05.2003 and out of the wed-lock, a girl child
was born in the year 2004. It appears that after the child was
born, some matrimonial disputes arose between the parties and
it is the say of the applicant-husband that respondent No.1-
wife deserted him in the year 2004 and since then, she and
their daughter have been residing at her parental home.
3.1 It appears that various litigation were filed by either side
against the other. Initially, the respondent-wife had filed
Criminal Misc. Application No.367 of 2013 before the Family
Court, Gandhinagar under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. The said
R/CR.RA/688/2021 ORDER DATED: 30/08/2022
application was partly allowed vide order dated 07.05.2015
whereby, the monthly maintenance was fixed at Rs.5000/- and
Rs.4000/- in favour of respondent No.1-wife and respondent
No.2-daughter respectively. Thereafter, the respondents
preferred Criminal Misc. Application No.67 of 2017 under
Section 127 of Cr.P.C. seeking enhancement of the amount of
monthly maintenance, which came to be partly allowed on
31.05.2018 whereby, the monthly maintenance was fixed at
Rs.7000/- and Rs.4500/- in favour of the respondent-wife and
respondent-daughter respectively. Against the said order, the
applicant-husband had preferred Criminal Misc. Application
No.135 of 2017 before the Family Court, which came to
rejected.
3.2 In the year 2020, the respondents preferred Criminal
Misc. Application No.79 of 2020 before the Family Court
seeking enhancement of the amount of monthly maintenance to
Rs.60,000/- and Rs.40,000/- in favour of the respondent-wife
and respondent-daughter respectively. The said application
R/CR.RA/688/2021 ORDER DATED: 30/08/2022
came to be partly allowed vide order dated 30.07.2021
whereby, the monthly maintenance was fixed at Rs.9500/- and
Rs.6000/- in respect of the respondent-wife and respondent-
daughter respectively. Being aggrieved by the said order, the
present revision applications have been preferred.
4. Heard learned advocates on both the sides. It appears
that in the cross-examination before the Court below, the
applicant-husband has admitted that he had undertaken a visit
to a foreign country - Malaysia as a Tourist and not for any
business related purpose. Ordinarily, a person with meagre
income would not undertake a leisure trip to a foreign
country. Keeping in mind the said aspect and the evidence on
record, the Court below enhanced the amount of monthly
maintenance by way of the impugned judgment and order.
5. Insofar as the application preferred by the respondent-
wife and daughter seeking enhancement of the amount of
maintenance is concerned, the Court below found that there
R/CR.RA/688/2021 ORDER DATED: 30/08/2022
was nothing on record to suggest that the applicant-husband
was earning income, as suggested by the respondent-wife and
hence, the Court below enhanced the monthly maintenance to
Rs.9500/- and Rs.6000/- in favour of the respondent-wife and
respondent-daughter respectively, which, in the considered
opinion of this Court, is just, legal and appropriate. In view of
the above, this Court finds no reasons to entertain either of
the applications.
6. For the foregoing reasons, both the applications are
dismissed. Notice is discharged. Interim relief granted in
Criminal Revision Application No.688 of 2021 stands vacated.
(SAMIR J. DAVE, J)
PRAVIN KARUNAN
