Gujarat High Court High Court

Ashishkumar vs Nilaxiben on 17 February, 2010

Gujarat High Court
Ashishkumar vs Nilaxiben on 17 February, 2010
Author: Akil Kureshi,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

SCR.A/1501/2008	 2/ 2	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

SPECIAL
CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 1501 of 2008
 

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


 

ASHISHKUMAR
MADHAVLAL RAVAL - Applicant(s)
 

Versus
 

NILAXIBEN
ASHISHKUMAR RAVAL & 2 - Respondent(s)
 

=======================================================
Appearance : 
MR
MANOJ SHRIMALI for Applicant(s) : 1, 
NOTICE UNSERVED for
Respondent(s) : 1 - 2. 
MS CM SHAH APP for Respondent(s) :
3, 
======================================================= 

 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 17/02/2010
 

ORAL
ORDER

The
petitioner has challenged an order dated 13.06.2008 passed by the
Learned Additional District Judge & Fast Track Court No.1,
Surendranagar in Criminal Revision Application No.80/2007 directing
the petitioner to pay Rs.2,300/- per month to his wife and another
Rs.2,300/- per month to his minor son by way of monthly maintenance.
The respondent no.1-wife had approached the Court of the Magistrate
seeking maintenance from the petitioner. Learned Magistrate by order
dated 24.09.2007 granted Rs.400/- per month to the wife and Rs.300/-
per month to minor child. This was increased by the Sessions Court as
above. Hence, the petition.

Having
heard learned advocate for the petitioner and having perused the
materials on record, I find that admittedly the petitioner is
employed as a Constable in the State Police Department. Even at the
relevant time, his pre-revised salary was Rs.7,600/- per month, out
of which, he was suffering certain deductions, which included
Rs.1,100/- towards the provident fund contribution. It is not in
dispute and the fact of which this Court can take judicial notice
that the State Government employees have received benefit of 6th
Pay Commission Recommendations with retrospective effect from
01.01.2006. Income of the petitioner therefore would have been
considerably revised. It is true that the increased maintenance as
fixed by the Learned Sessions Judge is with effect from the date of
application for maintenance, which was 19.01.2004, however, taking
over all view of the matter and particularly in view of the
periodical revision in salary of the Government employees, I see no
reason to entertain this writ jurisdiction. The petition is therefore
dismissed. Notice is discharged.

(AKIL
KURESHI,J.)

/patil

   

Top