Gujarat High Court
Girishbhai Naranbhai Parmar vs State Of Gujarat on 30 June, 2022
Bench: Samir J. Dave
R/CR.RA/618/2022 ORDER DATED: 30/06/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 618 of 2022
==========================================================
GIRISHBHAI NARANBHAI PARMAR
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR RM PARMAR(591) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3
MR R. C. KODEKAR, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SAMIR J. DAVE
Date : 30/06/2022
ORAL ORDER
1. By preferring present application, applicant has requested to
quash and set aside the judgment dated 31.03.2022 passed by
learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Jamnagar in Criminal
Misc. Application No.112 of 2020 granted maintenance
directing the applicant to pay Rs. 8,000/- per month to the
respondent no.2 and Rs.4,000/- per month to the respondent
no.3 from 25.11.2019 (date of filing application under Section
125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure) .
2. Brief facts of the present case are as under:
3. That, the Marriage between the applicant and the respondent
No.2 wife was solemnized according to customary rites and
rituals in family on 02.06.2014 residing in the joint family. The
initial span of marriage was good and after some time the in-
laws had started torturing the respondent no. 2. In the span of
one and half years of the said marriage, baby boy namely
Maulik born and on the ground of instigation through the
R/CR.RA/618/2022 ORDER DATED: 30/06/2022
family members, the torturing started with regards to the
trivial issues. During pregnancy of respondent no.2, the
applicant wanted to have only baby boy and the applicant did
not take care of respondent no.2. At the time of delivery also,
the applicant did not make proper arrangement of food and
etc. during the period while respondent no.2 admitted in the
hospital. Thereafter, after a period of one and half month from
the date of delivery, the parent of respondent no.2 took her to
their home and the parents of respondent no.2 requested the
applicant to bring her back to her matrimonial house after one
month. However, even after a period of three months, the
parents inquired with the applicant to bring her back to his
house, however, the applicant gave evasive replies,
demanded for dowry and also doubted about the character of
respondent no.2. Thereafter, after settlement arrived at
between them, applicant in the year August, 2017 accepted
respondent no.2 back to his house after a period of two years.
Thereafter, time and again respondent no.2 was physically
and mentally tortured by applicant and hence, respondent
no.2 filed complaint before the Police Station on 21.11.2020.
Thereafter, respondent no.2 has preferred Criminal Misc.
Application No.112 of 2020 before the learned Principal Judge,
Family Court, Jamnagar. The said application came to be
partly allowed and the Trial Court directed the applicant to
pay maintenance of Rs.8,000/- per month to respondent no.2
and Rs.4,000/- per month to respondent no.3 herein. Hence,
the present application is preferred by the applicant.
R/CR.RA/618/2022 ORDER DATED: 30/06/2022
4. Heard learned advocate for the applicant.
5. It was submitted by learned advocate for the applicant that
the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned
Family Court is against law, illegal, arbitrary and perverse. He
further submitted that respondent no.2 did not come with
clean hands before the Court informed the court that the
applicant is doing service and doing business of broker,
though he is an advocate. He is earning monthly
remuneration as Rs.10,000/- being junior advocate, which was
placed before the learned Family Court but learned Family
court did not appreciate the salary aspect and instead of
Rs.10,000./-, considered the income of the applicant as
Rs.30,000/-. That, the respondent no.2 had also preferred an
application under the provisions of Domestic Violence Act,
wherein learned Family Court had considered the interim
maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month. Learned advocate for
the applicant has further submitted that the applicant is doing
service as Junior Advocate and earning Rs.10,000/- per
month, therefore, the order of the maintenance is passed
which is unjust and unreasonable. Ultimately, it was
submitted by learned advocate for the applicant to allow
present application by quashing and setting aside impugned
judgment.
6. Heard learned advocate for the applicant and perused the
documents produced on record. Before concluding the matter,
it is required to be noted that the purpose and object of
R/CR.RA/618/2022 ORDER DATED: 30/06/2022
Section 125 Cr.P.C. is to provide immediate relief to an
applicant. An application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is
predicated on two conditions: (1) the husband has sufficient
means; and (2) "neglects" to maintain his wife, who is unable
to maintain herself. In such a case, the husband may be
directed by the Magistrate to pay such monthly sum to the
wife, as deemed fit. Maintenance is awarded on the basis of
the financial capacity of the husband and other relevant
factors. Under sub-section (2) of Section 125, the Court is
conferred with the discretion to award payment of
maintenance either from the date of the order, or from the
date of the application. Under the third proviso to the
amended Section 125, the application for grant of interim
maintenance must be disposed of as far as possible within
sixty days' from the date of service of notice on the
respondent.
7. In the impugned judgment the learned Family Judge has
observed that the in the year 2017, the applicant has deserted
the respondent no.2 and it was further observed that
applicant has not produced any specific documentary
evidence about the expenses caused by the applicant every
month and the applicant is the husband of the respondent
no.2 thus he cannot escape from his responsibility of
maintaining his wife and minor child. It is further observed by
the learned Family Court that the maintenance amount
awarded must be reasonable and realistic, and avoid either of
the two extremes i.e. maintenance awarded to the wife should
R/CR.RA/618/2022 ORDER DATED: 30/06/2022
neither be so extravagant which becomes oppressive and
unbearable for the respondent, nor should it be so meager that
it drives the wife to penury. The sufficiency of the quantum
has to be adjudged so that the wife is able to maintain herself
with reasonable comfort.
8. During the arguments, this Court asked to learned advocate
for the applicant about amount of maintenance as per the
impugned order paid or to be paid by the applicant till date
and in reply thereof, learned advocate for the applicant
submits that till today he has paid total maintenance amount
of Rs. 60,000/- to the respondent no.2-3. On the basis of
statement made by learned advocate for the applicant, this
court asked about depositing amount of arrears of
maintenance but learned advocate for the applicant has
submitted that the applicant is not desirous to deposit any
amount of maintenance.
9. In case of "Bani v. Parkashsingh", Punjab & Haryana High
Court, it is held that:
"Law is not that powerless as not to bring the husband to
book. If the husband has failed to make the payment of
maintenance and litigation expenses to wife, his defence be
struck out."
10. The law is clear that husband is bound to maintain his wife
and minor children and in the present case, after passing the
order of maintenance huge amount of arrears has not been
R/CR.RA/618/2022 ORDER DATED: 30/06/2022
paid by the applicant. When a husband is negligent and does
not pay maintenance to his wife as awarded by the Court,
then how such a person is entitled to the relief claimed by him
in the matrimonial proceedings.
11. Thus, while considering aforesaid discussion, this court
deems it not fit to accept the prayer of the applicant and
accordingly, present application stands rejected at the stage of
admission without issuing notice to the other-side.
(SAMIR J. DAVE,J)
MEHUL B. TUVAR
