Gujarat High Court
Prabhuji Pratapji Marwadi vs State Of Gujarat on 16 December, 2022
Bench: Umesh A. Trivedi
R/CR.RA/330/2019 ORDER DATED: 16/12/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 330 of 2019
=============================================
PRABHUJI PRATAPJI MARWADI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
=============================================
Appearance:
SONAL J BHAVSAR(7399) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
HCLS COMMITTEE(4998) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR NACHIKET D MEHTA(6529) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR. UTKARSH SHARMA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
=============================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH A. TRIVEDI
Date : 16/12/2022
ORAL ORDER
1. This application is filed by the petitioner - father,
aged about 52 years, to claim maintenance from his son, who
is aged about 22 year, as written in the cause title, challenging
an order dated 13.02.2019 passed by the Judge, Family Court
No.3, Ahmedabad in Criminal Misc. Application No.1068 of
2016, which came to be refused by the Court.
2. Mr. Mahesh Bhavsar, learned advocate for Ms.
Sonal J. Bhavsar, learned advocate for the petitioner - father
submitted that, since the petitioner - father has averred in his
application and deposition that he does not earn anything and
respondent - son is earning Rs.25,000/- p.m., he be awarded
the maintenance of Rs.7000/- p.m., as claimed in the
application. He has further submitted that denying him
maintenance at all from the son by the impugned order, is
illegal and therefore, it is required to be quashed and set
aside. He has further submitted that the petitioner - father is
aged about 52 years, doing miscellaneous labour work and he
R/CR.RA/330/2019 ORDER DATED: 16/12/2022
may get Rs.100/- to 150/- per day when he gets work. It is
further his claim that some day, he may not even earn. He has
further submitted that he has his old aged mother of 85 years
and he is also suffering from various disease and taking
treatment in the V.S.Hospital, Paldi. Therefore, he has
submitted that this revision application be admitted and
allowed.
3. Having heard Mr. Mahesh Bhavsar, learned
advocate for the petitioner and going through the impugned
judgment and order, it appears that out of frustration,
petitioner - father has claimed maintenance from his son, who
is fresh graduate and proceeding further studies, only with a
view to deny enhancement of maintenance to his own wife. It
is further coming out from the impugned judgment and order
that petitioner is staying separate from his wife i.e. mother of
respondent No.2 herein, since last 22 to 23 years. As admitted
by the petitioner - husband in his deposition that initially an
order of maintenance was passed to pay Rs.150/- p.m. and on
another application being filed for variation, Rs.600/- was
ordered to be paid as maintenance to the wife as also the son,
who is present respondent No.2 herein. It is further admitted
by him that respondent - son was aged about 8 to 9 months,
when they separated. Petitioner - husband has admitted in his
cross examination that thereafter he has never attempted to
meet his own son nor filed any petition for custody of his son
from the wife. He has further clearly admitted in his cross
examination that in which school son was admitted by his wife,
is not known to him and he has never tried to even ascertain
R/CR.RA/330/2019 ORDER DATED: 16/12/2022
the same. The petitioner - father has claimed in his
examination-in-chief on oath that respondent is working in
some Call Center at Paldi and running a snack lorry, opposite
Vadilal Hospital and earns Rs.25,000/- p.m. However,
respondent - son has, in the written reply as also examination-
in-chief on oath, stated that he is a fresh graduate and he took
admission in Bhavans College for further studies. He has
denied on oath that he is serving in Call Center and running a
snack lorry, opposite Vadilal Hospital. He has further stated
before the Court that there is not a single residential premises
in his name. He has further deposed to before the Court on
oath that when he was 7 months old, along with his mother he
was deserted. He has further asserted that this application is
filed claiming maintenance as a counterblast against the
application for enhancement of maintenance filed by his
mother against the petitioner - husband. Though he has
claimed in his deposition that petitioner - father has sold off
two storied Haveli in Rajasthan for Rs.45 lakh but without any
documentary evidence in support thereof, as such according to
the respondent - son, in his reply as also the examination-in-
chief on oath, petitioner - father is serving as a Salesman in
Kuber Gutkha Company and earning Rs.10,000/- p.m. and in a
free hour, he himself runs snack lorry.
4. On overall appreciation of evidence, learned Judge
has concluded that respondent No.2 - son is still studying and
there appears no source of earning, coupled with the fact that
since mother of respondent No.2 has claimed enhancement of
maintenance against the petitioner-father, as soon as
R/CR.RA/330/2019 ORDER DATED: 16/12/2022
respondent No.2 became major, the petitioner-father has filed
application for maintenance from him without any cause.
5. Considering the evidence led before it, the Trial
Court has concluded that the petitioner is not entitled to the
maintenance from his son, who is still studying. So, I am in full
agreement with the judgment and order passed by the Family
Court, it being well reasoned and therefore, I see no infirmity in
it while exercising jurisdiction under Section 397 read with
Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Hence, I
see no reason to entertain this application and therefore, it is
hereby rejected. Notice is discharged.
(UMESH A. TRIVEDI, J)
Lalji Desai
