Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCR.A/1751/2009 4/ 4 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 1751 of
2009
=========================================================
VIKRAMBHAI
VINODLAL SHAH - Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 2 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MRMPSHAH
for
Applicant(s) : 1,MS. KRUTI M SHAH for Applicant(s) : 1,
MS CM
SHAH, ASST. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for Respondent(s) : 1,
MR PRAVIN
GONDALIYA for Respondent(s) : 2,
NOTICE SERVED for Respondent(s) :
3,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
Date
: 21/09/2010
ORAL
ORDER
1. Petitioner is the
husband of respondent No.2 and father of minor respondent No.3. He
is directed to pay maintenance of Rs.4,000/- to the wife and
Rs.3,000/- to the minor daughter, by the impugned judgment dated
29.04.2008, passed by the learned Magistrate, Jamnagar, as upheld by
the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jamnagar, by the judgment
dated 25.06.2009.
2. The learned Counsel
for the petitioner submitted that respondent No.2, wife, had no
reason to stay away from the husband. She is capable of maintaining
herself. Even otherwise, the award passed by the Courts below is
excessive.
3. On the other hand,
the learned Counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 opposed this petition,
contending that the orders passed by the Courts below call for no
interference.
4. I have heard learned
APP on behalf of respondent No.1-State.
5. Having heard the
learned Advocates for the parties and on perusal of the material on
record, it emerges that the petitioner is Charted Accountant by
profession, who has settled down in Surat. He is about 34 years of
age. The assessment of his income done by the Courts below cannot be
faulted, awarding monthly maintenance of Rs.4,000/- to the wife and
Rs.3,000/- to the minor daughter, which cannot be stated to be
excessive.
6. Before the Courts
below, though, the husband produced several documents to suggest that
the wife was involved in the profession of the Interior Decorator,
all the evidence were of the period, prior to the marriage. Wife had
stated before the Court that, after her marriage, she had stopped
working. Subsequently, daughter was born, who is stated to be about
five years of age, presently.
7. With respect to the
wife’s refusal to stay with the husband, the Courts below have
explained this aspect, observing that the husband had raised serious
doubts about the character of the wife.
8. No case for
interference is made out. This petition is DISMISSED,
accordingly.
9. On condition that
the husband pays the entire amount of arrears latest by 31ST
JANUARY, 2011, in equal MONTHLY installments,
starting from 15TH
OCTOBER, 2010, and continues to pay the prospective monthly
maintenance REGULARLY, there shall be no coercive
RECOVERY against him. FAILING this
condition, it will be open for the wife to recover the maintenance,
in accordance with law.
10. The learned Counsel
for the husband submitted that he would be willing to settle the
dispute with the wife. Despite dismissal of the petition, it is
always open to the parties to explore the possibilities of
settlement.
(AKIL
KURESHI, J.)
Umesh/
Top