Gujarat High Court
Khokhar Bhikhabhai S/O Jinabhai ... vs Khokhar Sangeetaben Bhikhabhai on 15 February, 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/234/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/02/2024
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 234 of 2012
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
==========================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed
to see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy
of the judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question
of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution
of India or any order made thereunder ?
==========================================================
KHOKHAR BHIKHABHAI S/O JINABHAI CHAKUBHAI
Versus
KHOKHAR SANGEETABEN BHIKHABHAI & 3 other(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR VASANTS SHAH(810) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS BHAVIKA H KOTECHA(2942) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3
MR HK PATEL, ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s) No. 4
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
Date : 15/02/2024
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. By way of this petition, the petitioner prays to quash and
set aside order dated 16.3.2012 passed by the Family Court,
Ahmedabad in Criminal Misc. Application No.2094 of 2008
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/234/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/02/2024
undefined
granting maintenance of Rs.1500/- per month to the respondent
No.3 from 28.8.2008 till realization.
2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner married to
respondent No.1 by so called registered deed on 3.12.2007 and
thereafter, they started living together. This is the second
marriage of both the parties and respondent Nos.2 and 3 are the
son and daughter of the respondent No.1 from her previous
marriage. But two months after marriage, both the petitioner
and respondent No.1 got separated and thereafter, the
respondent No.1 filed aforestated Criminal Misc. Application for
maintenance.
3. Upon filing of aforestated Criminal Misc. Application, a
show cause notice has been issued to the petitioner and the
petitioner appeared through advocate and filed reply at Exh.7
and contested the application, whereby he denied marriage with
the respondent No.1 herein and also denied relationship with
respondent No.1 as husband and wife.
4. The learned Family Court, Ahmedabad by impugned
judgment and order, has been pleased to partly allowed the
application and granted maintenance of Rs.1500/- per month to
the respondent No.3 from 28.8.2008 till realization. Hence,
present petition.
5. Learned advocate for the petitioner would submit that the
learned trial Court has not considered the reply of the petitioner
at Exh.7. He would further submit that the petitioner has spent
huge amount for treatment for his earlier wife, who was suffering
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/234/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/02/2024
undefined
from cancer and at present, he is without any job and has no
source of income. He would further submit that the petitioner
has filed his examination-in-chief on oath, which is not
challenged by the otherside and therefore, as per the Evidence
Act, his evidence remained unchallenged and should be
considered fully. He would further submit that the respondent
No.1 has failed to prove that she is legally wedded wife of the
petitioner. Upon such submission, learned advocate for the
petitioner submits to allow this petition.
6. Learned advocate for the respondent Nos.1 to 3 and
learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the
respondent-State have opposed this petition and pray this Court
to pass necessary order.
7. Heard the learned Advocates for the respective parties and
perused the papers.
8. Having heard the learned advocate for the parties, at the
outset, it is undisputed fact that the petitioner and the
respondent No.1 are legally married husband and wife as per the
marriage registration annexed at Exh.5/2. During the cross-
examination of the respondent No.1, she has stated that she has
left the job. However, there is no evidence on record to show
that the respondent No.1 has also left the job. Thus, the learned
trial Court has rightly come to the conclusion that the
respondent No.1 is a earning lady and is capable of earning her
livelihood and therefore, not entitled for maintenance from the
petitioner. So far as maintenance of respondent No.3 is
concerned, as per compromise deed at Exh.5/3, the petitioner
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/234/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/02/2024
undefined
has taken the responsibility to maintain respondent No.3, which
fact is not specifically denied by the petitioner in his affidavit on
oath or statement. At the time of marriage i.e. 7.12.2007, the
respondent No.3 was aged 13 years and at the time of passing
the impugned order, the respondent No.3 is aged 18 years.
9. At this juncture, it is worth mention judgment of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Jagdish Jagtavat Vs.Manjulata
and others reported in (2002) 5 SCC 422, wherein the Hon'ble
Apex Court has held that in case if the daughter is major and
unmarried, she is entitled to be maintained by her father. Even
as per section 20(3) of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act,
1956, the daughter is entitled for maintenance till she marries.
10. Thus, considering the para 13 of the impugned order, there
is no error much less patent error committed by the learned trial
Court in passing the order granting maintenance of Rs.1500/-
per month to the respondent No.3 from 28.8.2008 till realization.
11. Under circumstances, present petition fails and stands
dismissed. Rule discharged.
(J. C. DOSHI,J)
SHEKHAR P. BARVE
