Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.RA/166/2010 1/ 4 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
REVISION APPLICATION No. 166 of 2010
=========================================================
JAYESH
(JAY) JAYCHAND SARDA - Applicant(s)
Versus
KRUPALIBEN
J SARDA & 2 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
AR THACKER for
Applicant(s) : 1,
MR TS NANAVATI for Respondent(s) : 1 - 2.
PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR for Respondent(s) :
3,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
Date
: 09/08/2010
ORAL
ORDER
Petitioner
is husband of respondent No.1 and father of minor respondent No.2.
He has challenged an order dated 14th December 2009
passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Rajkot by which he has
been directed to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.3,500/- to the wife
and Rs.2,000/- to the son. The petitioner thus has to pay
Rs.5,500/- every month to respondent Nos.1 and 2.
Learned
advocate for the petitioner stated at the outset that though the
wife is responsible for not residing with the husband without just
cause, this petition is confined to the quantum of maintenance
awarded by the Family Court. In that view of the matter, I have not
examined in detail the conclusion of the learned Judge with respect
to the payability of compensation to the wife under section 125 of
the Criminal Procedure Code. The sole question which is agitated
at some length before me is with respect to the quantum of
maintenance awarded by the learned Judge.
Counsel
for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is doing private
service earning barely Rs.3,000/- per month. He had examined his
employer before the Family Court. Awarding of Rs.5,500/- by way of
monthly maintenance therefore was excessive.
On
the other hand, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 opposed
the petition contending that there was enough evidence on record to
suggest that the petitioner’s stand that he was serving in a private
firm earning paltry sum of Rs.3,000/- per month was totally
inaccurate. It was contended that the petitioner is engaged in
several businesses. His family has business interests and
substantial properties in cities like Jamnagar and Ahmedabad.
Having
thus heard the learned advocates for the parties, I find that though
the petitioner had examined one Kantibhai Shivlal Nanda at Ex.127,
who stated that the petitioner was engaged by him for a monthly
salary of Rs.3,000/- as supervisor, such statement cannot be
believed. The witness in his cross-examination though stated that
he pays sales tax and income tax did not produce before the court
any voucher for payment of salary to the petitioner. Further, in
the written statement itself, the petitioner had claimed his income
to be Rs.4,000/-. Thus there was variance in the statement of the
petitioner vis-a-vis his own witness. Further, the wife had produced
along with application Ex.126 certain documents, one of them included
the visiting card of the petitioner. Though this document has not
been exhibited, the petitioner stated before the Court below that the
visiting card does contain his residential telephone number. He did
not deny other details provided in the card.
The
wife had also in her claim petition suggested that there are
several businesses in which the petitioner’s father and uncle are
involved. They also own valuable properties in large cities. Except
for a bare denial of all these allegations, the petitioner produced
no material before the court below in any form. If the family of the
petitioner is engaged in certain business, it is difficult to
envisage that the petitioner would render any private service for a
small sum of Rs.3,000/- or Rs.4,000/- per month. The court below,
therefore, correctly assessed his income at approximately Rs.12,000/-
p.m. Additionally, I also find that wife had examined the officer
from the Insurance Company to show that she had been able to get only
one insurance policy in the entire tenure. The claim of the
petitioner that the wife is gainfully employed thus stood disproved.
Under the circumstances, I do not find that the court below
committed any error in awarding the maintenance. The petition is
therefore dismissed. Rule is discharged.
In
modification of the order dated 19.7.2010, the Registry shall issue
cheque in the name of respondent No.1, i.e. Krupa Suryakant Gandhi.
(Akil
Kureshi, J.)
(vjn)
Top
