Gujarat High Court
Rajesh Maheshbhai Jethva vs State Of Gujarat on 5 February, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/3103/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/02/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3103 of 2015
(FOR MAINTENANCE)
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIVYESH A. JOSHI : Sd/-
=======================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
- √
=======================================================
RAJESH MAHESHBHAI JETHVA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
=======================================================
Appearance:
MR DHAIRYAWAN D BHATT(11817) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR DJ CHAUHAN(219) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR MANAN MEHTA APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
=======================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIVYESH A. JOSHI
Date : 05/02/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The order under challenge is dated 13.02.2015
passed by learned Family Judge, Rajkot in Criminal
Misc. Application No.127/2014, whereby the said
application was partly allowed directing the
petitioner herein to pay sum of Rs.2,400/- to the
respondent - wife towards the maintenance for the
period between 06.03.2007 to 11.10.2010.
2. The brief facts leading to filing of the present
petition are as under,
2.1 The petitioner married with the respondent -
wife on 23.11.2005 as per Hindu rites and
rituals and started residing together.
2.2 However on account of differences of opinion,
disputes were cropped up, which resulted into
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/3103/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/02/2025
undefined
filing an application under Section 125 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("CrPC"
for short) by the respondent - wife being
Criminal Misc. Application No.216/2008, which
was allowed by the learned Judge concerned
granting maintenance of Rs.2,400/- per month.
2.3 Aforesaid order was challenged by the
petitioner before the learned Judge, Rajkot
by filing Criminal Misc. Application
No.127/2014 on the ground that the respondent
- wife entered into relationship with one
Uday Chandrakant Chauhan on the strength of
an agreement of "Live in Relationship".
2.4 After considering rival submissions of the
parties, the learned Judge, Rajkot, by
impugned order, partly allowed the said
application and granted maintenance of
Rs.2,400/- to the respondent - wife for the
period between 06.03.2007 to 11.10.2010.
3. Heard learned advocate, Mr. Dhairyawan Mehta for
the petitioner and learned APP Mr. Manan Maheta
for the respondent - State of Gujarat. No one has
remained present for the respondent no.2. However,
I have considered the affidavit-in-reply filed on
behalf of the respondent - wife.
4. Learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted
that while passing impugned order, learned Judge
has not considered the fact that during the
existence of their marriage, the respondent - wife
entered into relationship with one Uday Chauhan
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/3103/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/02/2025
undefined
and started residing with him at Sardhar by
executing an agreement of "Live in Relationship.
He further submitted that in fact, out of said
relationship, she gave birth to one child, copy of
birth certificate issued by Shree Swaminarayan
Mandir Sanchalit Hospital, Sardhar is also
produced on record at Page No.35 of the
compilation, therefore, she is not entitled for
any maintenance as claimed by her and as ordered
by the learned Judge, therefore, the impugned
order is erroneous one and it may be quashed and
set aside.
5. At this stage, learned advocate has placed
reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in case of Begum Subanu @ Saira Bau Vs. A.M.
Abdul Gafoor, reported in (1987) 2 SCC 285 and
submitted that the case of the petitioner is
squarely covered by the said decision. It is,
therefore, urged that the present petition may be
allowed and the impugned order may be quashed and
set aside.
6. On the other hand, learned APP has opposed the
present petition contending that while passing
impugned order, the learned Judge has not
committed any error. He submitted that in fact,
the learned Judge has taken into consideration the
relationship of the respondent - wife with other
and taking into consideration all facts of the
case, the learned Judge has modified the order
granting maintenance for limited period, which
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/3103/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/02/2025
undefined
does not required any interference at the hands of
this Hon'ble Court.
7. Having heard learned advocates for the parties and
having gone through the material available on
record, it is found out that the petitioner
married with the respondent - wife but due to some
differences of opinion, disputes have been cropped
up and, thereafter, an application under Section
125 of the CrPC was filed by the respondent - wife
for maintenance, which was allowed by the learned
Judge concerned granting maintenance of Rs.2,400/-
per month, however without taking divorce, the
respondent - wife started residing with one Uday
Chauhan and out of said relationship, she gave
birth to one child and upon coming to know about
the said fact, the petitioner had challenged the
order granting maintenance before the learned
Judge Rajkot and after considering the submissions
made on behalf of the parties and after
considering the material produced on record, the
learned Judge partly allowed the said application
preferred by the petitioner and granted
maintenance for the period between 06.03.2007 to
11.10.2010 i.e. from the date of separation to the
date of entering into relationship by the
respondent - wife with said Uday Chauhan and the
said order has been assailed by the petitioner in
the present petition.
8. I have examined the order impugned along with the
reasonings given by the learned Judge while
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/3103/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/02/2025
undefined
passing same and found that the learned Judge has
taken into consideration the submissions canvassed
by the parties as also facts of the case including
the fact of entering into relationship by the
respondent - wife with one Uday Chauhan by
executing an agreement of "Live in Relationship.
It is observed in the order impugned that date of
commencement of maintenance is 06.03.2007 till
11.10.2010, that is the date of entering into an
agreement of "Live in Relationship, therefore, the
respondent - wife is entitled for maintenance for
the period between 06.03.2007 to 11.10.2010, which
in the facts of the present case is ordered.
Therefore considering the facts of the case, I do
not find any perversity in the impugned order
granting maintenance of limited period, therefore,
no error is committed by the learned Judge as
canvassed by learned advocate for the petitioner,
which requires interference at the hands of this
Court.
9. I have considered the decision in case of Begum
Subanu @ Saira Bau (supra) relied upon by the
learned advocate for the petitioner. However, it
is required to be mentioned that there cannot be
any dispute with regard to the ratio laid down in
the same but in the facts and circumstances of the
case on hand and this being discretionary relief,
which requires to be granted judiciously, the said
decision would be of no help to the present
petitioner at this juncture.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/3103/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/02/2025
undefined
10. In view of the above observations, the present
petition fails and is hereby rejected. Notice is
discharged. Interim relief, if any, stands
vacated.
Sd/-
(DIVYESH A. JOSHI, J.)
Gautam
