Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCR.A/146320/2008 2/ 2 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 1463 of 2008
==========================================
HARSHABEN
GORDHANBHAI BHATI - Petitioner(s)
Versus
VIJAYKUMAR
MOHANLAL PARMAR & 1 - Respondent(s)
==========================================
Appearance
:
MR YATIN
SONI for Petitioner(s) : 1,
MS
MARIYA M DALAL for Petitioner(s) : 1,
None for Respondent(s) :
1,
MR KT DAVE, APP for Respondent(s) :
2,
==========================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE ANANT S. DAVE
Date
: 25/07/2008
ORAL
ORDER
This
petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is
preferred against the order dated 31st January, 2007
passed by the 3rd Additional Senior Civil Judge and
Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhavnagar by which the petitioner
was awarded Rs.700/- which came to be enhanced by the revisional
court by an order dated 5th March, 2008 in Revision
Application No.33 of 2007 wherein the revisional court had enhanced
the amount from Rs.700/- to Rs.950/-.
2. Learned
advocate appearing for the petitioner has taken this court through
certain statements and discussion of the courts below that the courts
below have not taken into consideration the real income of the
husband which is, according to the petitioner, Rs.30,000-40,000/-.
2.1 She
has further placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court
in the case of CHATURBHUJ vs. SITA BAI reported in 2008 (2) G.L.R.
Page 1159 where the Hon’ble Apex Court has considered the factor
about earning by the wife also and in that backdrop, while awarding
the maintenance, that consideration had weighed with the court.
3. Having
perused the record of the case, relevant documents and the discussion
of the courts below, nowhere any proof with regard to the income of
the husband that he is earning Rs.30,000-40,000/- is produced. In
that view of the case, the findings of fact arrived by the courts
below cannot be said to be, in any manner, perverse or illegal and no
interference is called for, while exercising powers under Section 226
of the Constitution of India. The petition is, therefore, rejected.
(
Anant S. Dave, J. )
hki
Top