Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.RA/315/2008 2/ 4 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
REVISION APPLICATION No. 315 of 2008
=========================================================
PUSHPABEN
JAGDISHPRASAD MEENA & 1 - Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 1 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
UM SHASTRI for
Applicant(s) : 1 - 2.
MR KARTIK PANDYA ADDL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for
Respondent(s) : 1,
MR MUKESH N PATEL for Respondent(s) :
2,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
Date
: 03/09/2010
ORAL
ORDER
Petitioner
No.1 is wife of the respondent No.2. Petitioner No.2, at the relevant
time, was their minor daughter. They had approached the Family Court,
Ahmedabad seeking maintenance from the respondent No.2. Family Court
by order dated 29th November 2007 directed the respondent
No.2 to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.2500/- to the wife and
Rs.1500/- to the child. He was, thus, required to pay maintenance of
Rs.4,000/- every month to the present petitioners from the date of
application i.e. 2.12.2005. Claimants have filed the present
proceeding seeking enhancement of maintenance. At the outset, it may
be noted that the petitioner No.2 daughter of the respondent No.2
has got married on 17.06.2009. As per provisions of Section 125 of
Cr.P.C., from that date she would not be entitled to any further
maintenance.
2. Now
the question is what maintenance the petitioner No.1 should be paid
from that date onwards and whether there should be any enhancement in
favour of both the petitioners for the period interior to 17.06.2009.
3. Counsel
for the petitioner drew my attention to salary slip of the respondent
No.2. He also pointed out that he had received Rs.8 lakhs by way of
compensation in land acquisition proceeding which amount would
receive reasonable interest on investment. He, therefore, submitted
that maintenance awarded by the Family Court is inadequate.
4. On
the other hand, Counsel for the respondent No.2 submitted that he has
additional responsibility of supporting his son who is residing with
him and his studying. The take home salary is not more than
Rs.10,000/-. Amount of compensation for land acquisition was received
way back in the year 1995. Such amount has been used away for
marriage of the sister and in post death ceremonies of his parents.
5. From
the material on record, following position emerges.
(I) Petitioner
No.2 having married on 17.06.2009, maintenance in her favour would
cease from that date.
(II) Though
it is stated that son of the respondent No.2 is presently about 19
years of age, but when the Family Court decided the issue of
maintenance, he was admittedly minor. Respondent No.2, therefore, had
his liability also on his head.
(III) From
the salary slip, it can be seen that the respondent No.2 was
receiving salary of Rs.15,910/- in June, 2010. Employer had deducted
Rs.5842/- therefrom giving him net amount of Rs.10,068/-. Out of the
said deductions, he was paying Rs.770/- to the provident fund and
Rs.2087/- towards LIC premium.
6. However,
these deductions are in the nature of his savings. Part thereof is
voluntary and part is compulsory, nevertheless, it does not take away
character of deductions being in the nature of savings of the
employee.
6.1 His
earning in June, 2010, therefore, at least, can be close to
Rs.13,000/-.
7. Though
Counsel for the respondent No.2 admitted that the amount of Rs.8
lakhs was received by way of compensation, his stand that such amount
was used away in religious ceremonies, is nowhere brought on record.
It is, therefore, not possible to accept this version of the husband
of having used nearly Rs.8 lakhs on marriage and post death
ceremonies. He was, thus, receiving considerable interest from such
savings to augment his salary income.
8. Considering
above aspects of the matter, taking into account the totality of the
facts and circumstances of the case, it is provided that the
respondent No.2 shall pay total amount of Rs.5,000/- to petitioner
No.1 from date 17.06.2009 and for the period prior to the said date,
there shall be no modification.
9. If
arrear of maintenance as per this order is cleared by latest by 31st
October 2010, there shall be no coercive recovery thereof against the
present petitioner.
With
these directions, the petition is disposed of.
(
AKIL KURESHI, J. )
kailash
Top