Gujarat High Court
Vinodrai Devrajbhai Sutradhar vs State Of Gujarat on 27 July, 2022
Bench: Samir J. Dave
R/CR.RA/892/2019 ORDER DATED: 27/07/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 892 of 2019
==========================================================
VINODRAI DEVRAJBHAI SUTRADHAR
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 1 other(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. KARAN U VYAS(6992) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
HCLS COMMITTEE(4998) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MS. MAYURI P CHAUHAN(7069) 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 : 27/07/2022
ORAL ORDER
By way of preferring this application, applicant has prayed to
quash and set aside the impugned judgement and order dated
19.9.2015 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Ahmedabad in
Criminal Misc. Application No. 1521 of 2011 as well as the order
passed in Criminal Misc. Application No.484 of 2017 for recovery
of the maintenance amount.
Heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties.
Learned advocate for the applicant submits that learned Judge,
Family Court, Ahmedabad has erred in not appreciating the evidence
on record which has resulted into miscarriage of justice therefore,
impugned judgement and order deserves to be quashed and set aside.
That, learned Judge has not appreciated the fact that the respondent
R/CR.RA/892/2019 ORDER DATED: 27/07/2022
No.2 has left the home with her two sons who are aged around 42
year and 37 year respectively and they are earning well and are
capable of taking care of their mother. That, learned Judge has erred
in not appreciating the fact that the only suffered is the applicant-
husband who has now left with no income. That, both the sons and
mother have left the home of the applicant and had also taken away
business of the applicant and now, it is difficult for the husband to
maintain himself. Therefore, he has also filed an application under
Section 125 of Cr.P.C. against two sons to pay maintenance to him,
so that he can maintain his livelihood. That, learned Judge, Family
Court has committed serious error in facts & law in passing the order
of maintenance to the extent of Rs.6000/- per month despite the fact
that the applicant is a retired person and his entire business has
been taken away by the wife and two sons and hence, looking to
overall facts, it is difficult for the husband to get income and now,
he is aged 66 years and it is not possible for him to pay this much
amount. That, learned Judge, Family Court, Ahmedabad has
committed serious error in passing the order of maintenance by
ignoring the fact that the respondent-wife has repeatedly tried to
extract money from the applicant to which present applicant did not
R/CR.RA/892/2019 ORDER DATED: 27/07/2022
succumb to this demand. That, the applicant has been a victim of
fraud and cheating by the respondent No.2 and her two sons which
has not been looked into by the learned Judge, Family Court,
Ahmedabad. Therefore, it was requested by learned advocate for the
applicant to allow the present application and reduce the
maintenance amount in favour of respondent No.2.
Learned advocate for the respondent Nos. 2 submits that on
29.6.2015, the dispute was settled between the respondent No.2 and
the applicant and as per settlement pursis, the applicant was agreed
to pay Rs.6000/- per month towards the maintenance to the
respondent-wife. Thereafter, as per settlement pursis, applicant is
not ready to pay the maintenance amount of Rs.6000/- to the
respondent-wife and he has not paid the maintenance amount but,
he is ready to pay the maintenance amount of Rs.5000/- per month to
the respondent-wife. Therefore, it was requested by learned advocate
for the respondent No. 2 to dismiss the present application and
enhance the maintenance amount in favour of respondent Nos. 2.
Learned APP for the respondent No.1-State submits that
dispute involved in the present application is matrimonial dispute
and therefore, he has requested to pass necessary orders.
R/CR.RA/892/2019 ORDER DATED: 27/07/2022
Having heard learned advocates appearing for the respective
parties as well as averments made in the present application, first of
all we have perused the provision 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,
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."
As per observations of the learned trial Court that as per
settlement pursis below Exh. 34, the applicant is agreed to to pay
R/CR.RA/892/2019 ORDER DATED: 27/07/2022
Rs.6000/- per month towards maintenance to the respondent -wife
with effect from 19.7.2011. In the present era, it can be seen that
inflation rate is increased day by day and in there hard days, it
cannot be possible by the wife to maintain herself as well as her
children in form of education of her children, medical expenses,
clothes etc. because respondent-wife is not working anywhere. Thus,
while considering all such aspects, learned trial Court has rightly
granted maintenance to the wife .
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 as well as children 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 judgement and order dated 19.9.2015 passed by the
learned Judge, Family Court, Ahmedabad in Criminal Misc.
Application No. 1521 of 2011 as well as the order passed in
R/CR.RA/892/2019 ORDER DATED: 27/07/2022
Criminal Misc. Application No.484 of 2017 for recovery of the
maintenance amount is hereby confirmed. No order as to costs.
(SAMIR J. DAVE,J)
BEENA SHAH
