Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.RA/743/2009 2/ 2 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
REVISION APPLICATION No. 743 of 2009
=============================================
BAKUL
KUMAR MANILAL RAJ - Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 1 - Respondent(s)
=============================================
Appearance :
MS FARHANA Y
MANSURI for MR NC NAYAK for Applicant(s) :
1,
MR UA TRIVEDI ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for Respondent(s) : 1,
MR
KRUNAL D PANDYA for Respondent(s) :
2,
=============================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE ANANT S. DAVE
Date
: 05/05/2010
ORAL
ORDER
This
revision application is preferred against the order dated 20.03.2009
passed by the learned Judge, Family Court No.2, Ahmedabad in Criminal
Misc. Application No.3187 of 2007 by which the applicant-husband is
directed to pay Rs.1,500/- p.m. towards maintenance to the
respondent-wife in exercise of powers under Section 125(1) of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 from the date of the order passed in
HMP No.5 of 2007 with costs of Rs.3,000/-.
Learned
advocate for the applicant submits that respondent No.2-wife is also
serving and earning Rs.7,000/- p.m. and the applicant has to maintain
his parents and awarding maintenance of Rs.1,500/- is
disproportionate to his monthly expenses. In view of the above,
learned advocate for the applicant submits that the impugned order
deserves to be quashed and set aside.
Learned
advocate for the respondent-wife submits that bare minimum amount of
Rs.1,500/- p.m. out of salary of Rs.7,000/- p.m.
is awarded towards maintenance. On the contrary, the same is on
lesser side, which does not require any interference in exercise of
revisional powers.
Considering
the facts and circumstances of the case and on perusal of the record
of the case, impugned order passed by the learned Family Court
awarding Rs.1,500/- p.m. to respondent-wife cannot be said to be in
any manner unjust, illegal, contrary to law when the husband had
monthly income of Rs.7,000/-. So far as monthly salary of the
respondent as a teacher is concerned, it shall have no bearing for
exercise of powers under Section 125(1) of the Code. No case is made
out to interfere with the order impugned in this revision
application.
Accordingly,
this revision application stands dismissed.
[Anant
S. Dave, J.]
*pvv
Top