Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.RA/347/2009 2/ 2 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
REVISION APPLICATION No. 347 of 2009
=========================================================
DINESHBHAI
PALJIBHAI SOLANKI - Applicant(s)
Versus
KOKILABEN
@ KAMLA DEVJIBHAI MAKWANA, MOTHER OF JAY, MINOR & 1 -
Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
FB BRAHMBHATT for
Applicant(s) : 1,
MR AD SHAH for Respondent(s) : 1,
MS ML
SHAH,APP for Respondent(s) :
2,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
Date
: 12/07/2010
ORAL
ORDER
I
have heard learned advocates for the parties for final disposal of
the petition.
This
petition is filed by the husband of respondent no.1. She has filed
application for maintenance for their minor son aged about seven
years. The Family Court has awarded maintenance of Rs.3000/- for the
child to be paid by the father. From the record, it appears that
petitioner is engaged in private firm as a chemist. Courts below on
the basis of evidence on record believed his income to be Rs.7000/-
per month. Out of the said sum, Rs.3000/- is ordered to be paid to
wife for maintenance of their child who is in custody of wife. It has
also come on record that wife is engaged in Food Corporation of India
on permanent basis. Her pre-revised salary in the year 2006-2007 was
close to Rs. 10,000/-. With implementation of sixth pay
recommendation, this income surely would have been increased
considerably.
Considering
the fact that husband was earning only Rs.7000/- per month, directing
him to pay Rs. 3000/- per month for son in my opinion would be on
higher side. Though wife does not have primary duty to look after the
son, taking into account her considerable higher income than the
husband, some modification is called for in the maintenance.
In
the result, petitioner is directed to pay Rs. 2000/- every month for
maintenance of his son. Arrears if any, as per this modified order
shall be paid latest by 30.10.2010. If so done, there shall be no
coercive recovery, failing which, if would be open for the Family
Court to implement the modified maintenance order. It is clarified
that if in future either the husband’s income undergoes upward
revision or son’s education requires considerably higher expenditure
to be incurred, it would be open for the mother to apply for
revision of the maintenance, if so advised.
With
above observations, the petition is disposed of.
(Akil
Kureshi,J.)
(raghu)
Top