Gujarat High Court High Court

Nileshgiri vs Bhavnaben on 9 July, 2010

Gujarat High Court
Nileshgiri vs Bhavnaben on 9 July, 2010
Author: Akil Kureshi,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

SCR.A/950/2010	 2/ 2	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

SPECIAL
CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 950 of 2010
 

 
 
=========================================================

 

NILESHGIRI
JAVERGIRI GOSWAMI - Applicant(s)
 

Versus
 

BHAVNABEN
NILESHGIRI GOSWAMI & 2 - Respondent(s)
 

=========================================================
 
Appearance
: 
MR
BHAVIN S RAIYANI for
Applicant(s) : 1, 
None for Respondent(s) : 1 - 2. 
MS ML SHAH,
APP  for Respondent(s) :
3, 
=========================================================


 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 09/07/2010 

 

 
ORAL
ORDER

Petitioner
has challenged an order dated 4.3.2010 passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Gondal in Criminal Revision Application
No.70/09 by which he confirmed the judgment dated 1.8.09 passed by
the learned JMFC, Gondal.

Issue
pertains to maintenance in favour of respondent No.1, wife of the
petitioner and respondent No.2 minor daughter. The courts below have
granted maintenance of Rs.2,000/- in favour of the wife and Rs.1000/-
in favour of the daughter to be paid by the petitioner every month.
Two courts below have concurrently found that the wife was not
staying with the petitioner on account of the treatment meted out by
him. With respect to quantum of maintenance, upon perusal of the
orders under challenge, I find that the husband was found to be
involved in occupation of re-filling and delivering gas cylinder of
Indian Gas Agency. He is also found to be owner of a rickshaw from
which also he would be earning some income.

Considering
the above evidence brought on record, I see no reason to interfere
with the orders passed by two courts below. An amount of Rs.3,000/-
per month cannot be said to be excessive. The petition is therefore,
dismissed.

(Akil
Kureshi, J.)

(vjn)

   

Top