Gujarat High Court High Court

Gitaben vs The on 17 August, 2010

Gujarat High Court
Gitaben vs The on 17 August, 2010
Author: A.M.Kapadia,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

CR.MA/6994/2005	 2/ 2	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 6994 of 2005
 

In


 

CRIMINAL
REVISION APPLICATION No. 477 of 2005
 

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

 

GITABEN
ARVINDBHAI PATEL - Applicant(s)
 

Versus
 

THE
STATE OF GUJARAT & 1 - Respondent(s)
 

==============================================================
 
Appearance
: 
MR
DM AHUJA for
Applicant(s) : 1, 
MR HM PRACHCHHAK APP for Respondent(s) : 1, 
MR
PK JANI for Respondent(s) :
2, 
==================================================================


 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE A.M.KAPADIA
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 07/09/2005 

 

 
 
					ORAL
ORDER

1. By
filing this application, the applicant has prayed to direct the
respondent-husband to pay monthly interim maintenance of
Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lacs only) to the applicant with 24%
interest during the pendency and final
disposal of Criminal Revision Application No.477 of 2005 which has
been filed by the applicant before this Court.

2. Having
heard Mr. DM Ahuja, learned advocate of the applicant, Mr. HM
Prachchhak, learned APP for respondent No.1 and Mr. PK Jani, learned
advocate for respondent No.2 and having
perused the impugned order dated 31.3.2005 rendered in Criminal Misc.
Application No.1700 of 2002 by the learned Judge of the Family Court
No.3, Ahmedabad by which the application filed by the applicant under
Section 125 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for maintenance has
been rejected, according to this court, the applicant
has not made out any case for interim maintenance
during the pendency of Criminal Revision Application No.477 of 2005
which has been admitted by this Court by passing a separate order
today. Hence, the application seeking interim maintenance deserves to
be rejected.

3. For
the foregoing reasons, the application fails and accordingly it is
rejected. Notice is discharged.

(A.M.

Kapadia, J.)

(karan)

   

Top