Gujarat High Court
Natvarbhai Maganbhai Prajapati vs State Of Gujarat on 13 January, 2022
Bench: B.N. Karia
R/CR.RA/785/2021 ORDER DATED: 13/01/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 785 of 2021
==========================================================
NATVARBHAI MAGANBHAI PRAJAPATI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
HIREN P KANDERA(9497) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5
for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR HARDIK SONI, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.N. KARIA
Date : 13/01/2022
ORAL ORDER
Notice. Learned APP waives service of notice for and on
behalf of the respondent no.1-State. Considering the
impugned order passed by the court below and concurrent
findings of the trial court, having gone through the findings
arrived at by the trial court, this court does not deem it fit to
issue notice to the respondent-wife to decide this application.
By way of present application, the applicants have
challenged the order dated 31.08.2021 passed by learned City
Civil and Sessions Court, Ahmedabad in Criminal Appeal No.
603 of 2019.
Heard learned advocate for the applicants.
It was submitted by learned advocate for the applicant
that the income of the present applicant no.1 is only Rs.
R/CR.RA/785/2021 ORDER DATED: 13/01/2022
12,000/- per month and he is no in a position to pay the
maintenance amount as awarded by the court below in favour
of the respondent no.2 granting maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- to
the wife and Rs. 4,000/- to the children. Learned advocate
for the applicants has submitted that the applicants have no
objection in paying maintenance to the children. He has only
objected to granting maintenance to the wife only which is not
accepted by the court for the reasons arrived at by the trial
court.
Learned advocate for the applicants has submitted that
number of litigations are initiated by the respondent-wife
wherein maintenance amount was also granted by the
different courts. He has further submitted that in Criminal
Case No. 2162 of 2017 filed in connection with the complaint
lodged for the offence punishable under Section 325, 323,
294(B), 506(1) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, all the
accused persons including the present applicant no.1 acquitted
by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Court
No. 10, Ahmedabad vide order dated 09.09.2019, though
similar kind of allegations were made in the another
proceedings by the respondent-wife which is pending before
the competent court. He has further submitted that husband
had filed Family Suit No. 398 of 2013 before the learned
Family Court, Ahmedabad under Section 9 of the Hindu
R/CR.RA/785/2021 ORDER DATED: 13/01/2022
Marriage Act 1955, which was allowed by the Family Court on
7th September 2019.
Learned APP for the respondent no.1 submits that the
dispute between the parties is matrimonial dispute and
therefore, this court may pass necessary orders in this
application.
Having heard learned advocate for the applicant and
learned APP for the respondent No.1-State, as per findings
arrived at by the Family Court, vide Ex. 18, affidavit was filed
by the wife before the trial Court. She was also cross-examined
by learned advocate for the applicants wherein it is stated that
daughter Dipika is having age of 19 years and is studying in
S.Y.B.com. And son namely Gaurav is having age of 18 years
and studying in standard 11 and another daughter Dimple is
having age of 16 years and studying in standard 11. The
respondent no.2 has also admitted in her cross examination
that 5 Bighas land was acquired to the husband and 15 bighas
land is on the joint names of the family members. She has
denied that her husband was serving in the factory of
submersible pumps. The trial court has observed that the
applicant no.1 being husband had a separate land of 5 bighas
and 15 bighas land on the joint ownership of the family
members. The trial court has also considered the documents
produced vide Exhl. 17, 18, 19 and 20 and stated that the
R/CR.RA/785/2021 ORDER DATED: 13/01/2022
immovable properties were in favour of the applicant no.1-
husband and of joint family. No evidence was produced by the
husband before the court below that however he was serving
in the Submersible pump factory or what was his salary. As per
the submissions of wife, husband was owning factory of
Submersible Pump. This fact was not controverted by the
husband before the trial court, and therefore, the court
believed that there is no reason to disbelieve the statement of
the wife. As the husband was owning an agricultural land as
well as immovable properties and was earning from the said
properties, it was opined that husband has a sufficient means
to maintain the wife and children. The trial court has initially
granted Rs. 3,000/- to the wife and Rs. 2,000/- to three
children, which was modified by the appellate court in
Criminal Appeal No. 603 of 2019. Learned first appellate court
has considered the judgment reported in 2014 (3) GLR PAGE
2159. It also appears that out of three children, son is totally
blind and one daughter is partially blind, and therefore, the
appellate court was of the opinion to increase the amount from
Rs. 3,000/- to Rs. 5,000/- per month to the wife and Rs.2,
000/- to Rs. 4,000/- per month to the children.
It was further ordered that out of three children, this
amount would be paid to the daughters till their marriage and
to the son till he is starting earning. Considering the
R/CR.RA/785/2021 ORDER DATED: 13/01/2022
observations made by the learned Appellate Court as well as
learned trial court, this court is of the view that there is no
illegality committed by the trial court in increasing
maintenance to the wife and children.
From the record, it appears that while passing an order
by learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Court
No. 7, Ahmedabad on 1st May 2019 in Criminal Misc.
Application No. 101 of 2011, it is made clear that if any order
of maintenance is passed by the competent court against the
husband and if any amount is paid by him then that amount
would be adjusted by the court. The respondent-wife has a
liberty to file the proceedings under the relevant provisions of
the law, which cannot be prevented to her, and therefore,
arguments advanced by the learned advocate for the applicants
cannot be sustained.
Thus, present application stands rejected and
accordingly, stands disposed of. Notice stands discharged.
(B.N. KARIA, J)
K. S. DARJI
