Gujarat High Court
Namori Laxman Sodham vs State Of Gujarat on 4 September, 2024
Author: Gita Gopi
Bench: Gita Gopi
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/1085/2024 ORDER DATED: 04/09/2024
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (FOR MAINTENANCE) NO. 1085
of 2024
==========================================================
NAMORI LAXMAN SODHAM
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS ARUSHI VYAS(13809) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR HARDIK MEHTA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
Date : 04/09/2024
ORAL ORDER
1. Present application is filed by the applicant with a
prayer to quash and set aside judgment and order dated
16/12/2023 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class,
Mandvi-Kachchh whereby the learned trial court has granted
compensation to Rs.2,800/- from Rs.1,000/- to applicant no.1
and Rs.1,200/- from Rs.500/- to applicant no.2 enhancing the
amount of compensation to the tune of Rs.1,800/- for applicant
no.1 and Rs.7,00/- for applicant no.2.
2. This Court has referred to the evidence of Arvind
Khimaji Charu placed on record who was examined during the
trial proceedings. It appears that the said witness is in
construction work and the applicant appears to be working
with him. It appears that he is not even paying him salary as
per the schedule of minimum wages of the State of Gujarat.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/1085/2024 ORDER DATED: 04/09/2024
undefined
3. This Court would not believe the statement of the
applicant who as per the statement of the wife is working with
labourers on the contract basis and the wife has to maintain
the minor.
4. The impugned order under Section 127 of the Criminal
Procedure Code shows that the amount has been enhanced
from Rs.1,000/- to Rs.1,800/- to applicant wife and from
Rs.500/- to Rs.700/- for applicant no.2 minor. The evidence of
Arvind Khimji Charu shows that he is not even maintaining
books of account and also shows that revisionist is having his
agriculture land. Further, they are, in total, four brothers and
the brothers are jointly taking care of the mother. The
witness Arvind Khimji Charu is doing business in the name of
Arti Developers and Arti Enterprises. Though he is income
tax payer, he has not shown any payment to the present
revisionist in his income tax returns, considering this fact, the
amount of maintenance has been ordered.
5. Learned advocate Ms. Arushi Vyas for the petitioner
submits that the present petitioner is blind and he is not in a
position to work.
6. The evidence of Arvind Khimji Charu does not state that
the revisionist is not capable to work. As per him, the
applicant is suffering from thyroid and after sunset, he is not
in a position to see but has denied the fact that because of
such disability, he cannot be employed in developers
construction work. This fact, thus, suggests from the
evidence recorded at Exh.23/C in Criminal Misc. Application
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/1085/2024 ORDER DATED: 04/09/2024
undefined
No.89 of 2022 that the present revisionist is physically and
mentally capable to earn sufficiently from the means so as to
maintain his wife and children. The amount of maintenance,
so ordered, is very reasonable.
7. In view of aforesaid, this Court does not find any reason
to entertain the present Criminal Revision Application and
hence, the same stands rejected.
(GITA GOPI,J)
ILA
