Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCR.A/1700/2009 2/ 2 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 1700 of 2009
=======================================================
HALIM
SIDDIK MANSURI - Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 3 - Respondent(s)
=======================================================
Appearance :
MRMPSHAH
for Applicant(s) : 1, MS KRUTI M SHAH for
Applicant(s) : 1,
MR KARTIK PANDYA APP for Respondent(s) : 1,
MR
RR TRIVEDI for Respondent(s) : 2 - 4.
MR BHAVESH P TRIVEDI for
Respondent(s) : 2 -
4.
=======================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
Date
: 17/02/2010
ORAL
ORDER
Heard
learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner is directed to pay
maintenance of Rs.1,200/- per month to the wife and Rs.800/- and
Rs.700/- each per month to his minor children. He has thus to pay
Rs.2,700/- every month. It is the case of the petitioner that he is
employed in a private processing unit earning Rs.3,000/- per month.
It is the case of the petitioner that previously, he had settled the
dispute with the wife by giving her certain property and the wife is
therefore now not entitled to receive any maintenance at all.
Two
courts below, however, did not accept the version of the petitioner
regarding the previous settlement for want of necessary proof. So
called compromise writing was not exhibited since it was not proved
before the Courts below. In that view of the matter, the petitioner
cannot escape from his liability to pay maintenance to his wife and
minor children.
Coming
to a question of quantum of maintenance, though wife had asserted
before the Court below that the husband is earning Rs.25,000/- per
month by doing labour contract work, even the Courts below have not
accepted this version in toto. In fact, the Learned Sessions Judge
observed that in a town like Jetpur, he can easily earn Rs.150/- to
Rs.200/- per day.
In
absence of any concrete proof of the income of the petitioner,
however, looking to the fact that he is not unemployed and is a
skilled labour, his income at the relevant time can be assessed at
Rs.3500-4000 per month even accepting that he was engaged in textile
processing unit. Periodically such income with rising price would
also go up.
Taking
into totality of the facts and circumstances, the petitioner is
directed to pay Rs.1,000/- per month to the wife and Rs.500/- each to
the minor children from the date of application till today. For the
future, he shall pay as per the rate fixed by the Courts below.
On
the condition that the petitioner clears entire arrears as per this
order latest by 15th April, 2010 and deposits before the
Court below 50% of the arrears by 15th March, 2010, there
shall be no coercive recovery. Disposed of accordingly.
(AKIL
KURESHI,J.)
/patil
Top