Gopalbhai Nagjibhai Chudasama vs State Of Gujarat
2023 Latest Caselaw 6773 Guj

                                                                                             NEUTRAL CITATION




     R/SCR.A/560/2020                                         ORDER DATED: 14/09/2023

                                                                                             undefined




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

           R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 560 of 2020

==========================================================
                        GOPALBHAI NAGJIBHAI CHUDASAMA
                                    Versus
                              STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS POOJA RAVAL for JAY R SHAH(8428) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3
MR DHAWAN JAYSWAL, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT

                                  Date : 14/09/2023

                                   ORAL ORDER

1. This petition is filed with a prayer to quash and set

aside the judgment and order dated 6.8.2019 passed by

learned Sessions Judge, Veraval, in Criminal Revision

Application No.19 of 2019 and also judgment and order dated

12.6.2019 passed by learned JMFC, Sutrapada, in Criminal

Misc. Application No.119 of 2014.

2. As per the facts of the case, the petitioner is husband

of respondent no.2 and father of respondent no.3. Marriage of

the petitioner with respondent no.2 was solemnized in 2007

as per Hindu rites and they are blessed with a baby girl. It

is alleged that as some dispute started between husband and

wife, the petitioner tortured the wife mentally and physically.

Thereafter, the wife has preferred an application under

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/SCR.A/560/2020 ORDER DATED: 14/09/2023

undefined

Section 125 of Criminal Procedure Code against her husband

in the Court of learned JMFC, Sutrapada, being Criminal

Misc. Application No.119 of 2014 for maintenance, in which

impugned order is passed, which is confirmed by the

revisional Court. The impugned order is essentially awarding

total Rs.7,500/- towards maintenance (Rs.4,500/- to wife and

Rs.3,000/- to the daughter Naisargi) against which present

petition is filed by the petitioner.

3. Heard learned advocate Ms.Pooja Raval for the

petitioner. She has submitted that both the Courts below

have not properly appreciated various aspects of the matter

and passed the orders mechanically. She has further

submitted that the orders passed by the Courts below

granting maintenance are very harsh and the Courts below

have ignored the material available on record. She has

further submitted that no proof of income of present

petitioner is produced by the wife, however, the Court has

passed the order in mechanical manner without considering

this aspect. She has further submitted that the petitioner is

having responsibility to maintain his old aged parents also

and, this aspect is also not considered by the Courts below,

while granting the amount of maintenance. Therefore, she

prays to allow present petition by interfering with the

impugned orders.

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/SCR.A/560/2020 ORDER DATED: 14/09/2023

undefined

4. Learned APP, Mr.Chintan Dave for the respondent-State

has submitted that both the Courts below have given

concurrent findings and it transpires that the petitioner's wife

had prayed for a total amount of Rs.20,000/- towards

maintenance (Rs.12,000/- for herself and Rs.8,000/- for the

daughter). It is also submitted that in the application,

profession of the petitioner is mentioned as "Lawyer" and his

income is mentioned as Rs.30,000/- per month and it is

stated that he is not having any other responsibility. He has

also submitted that considering rival submissions and

documents available on record, like documents from the

school of respondent no.2 and other papers, learned trial

Court has come to the conclusion that Rs.4,500/- is required

to be awarded to the wife and Rs.3,000/- to the daughter

towards maintenance. Against that order, present petitioner

has preferred revision application, wherein learned Revisional

Court has considered all the aspects in detail and rejected

the revision application by order dated 6.8.2019. Revisional

Court has also considered the aspect that onus is on the

husband to prove his income when the wife is asserting that

he is earning Rs.30,000/- and, in absence of any evidence,

trial Court has considered his income as Rs.15,000/- as his

profession is shown as 'lawyer'. He, therefore, prays that this

petition may be dismissed.

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/SCR.A/560/2020 ORDER DATED: 14/09/2023

undefined

5. Heard learned advocates for the parties and considered

the material available on record. In the application before the

trial Court, profession of the petitioner is shown as "Lawyer"

and his income is mentioned as Rs.30,000/- per month.

However, as no proof of income was produced on record,

learned trial Court has considered his income as Rs.15,000/-

per month. Learned trial Court has also rightly considered

the fact that the responsibility is on the petitioner to

maintain his wife and daughter. Accordingly, learned trial

Court has come to the conclusion that Rs.4,500/- is required

to be awarded to the wife and Rs.3,000/- to the daughter

towards maintenance. Against that order, present petitioner

has preferred revision application, wherein learned Revisional

Court has considered all the aspects in detail and rejected

the revision application by order dated 6.8.2019. The Courts

below have considered the aspect that onus is on the

husband to prove his income when the wife is asserting that

he is earning Rs.30,000/- and, in absence of any evidence,

trial Court has considered his income as Rs.15,000/- as his

profession is shown as 'lawyer'. Therefore, the amount of

maintenance awarded by the trial Court and confirmed by

the revisional Court is found to be just, proper and

reasonable, and to some extent on lower side. Considering

above aspects, both the Courts below have given cogent and

convincing reasons and have not committed any error of facts

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/SCR.A/560/2020 ORDER DATED: 14/09/2023

undefined

or law. Both the Courts have properly appreciated the

material available on record and awarded the amount of

maintenance.

6. In view of above, I do not find any infirmity in the

impugned order. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. The

impugned judgment and order dated 6.8.2019 passed by

learned Sessions Judge, Veraval, in Criminal Revision

Application No.19 of 2019 and also judgment and order dated

12.6.2019 passed by learned JMFC, Sutrapada, in Criminal

Misc. Application No.119 of 2014 are hereby confirmed.

(SANDEEP N. BHATT,J) R.S. MALEK