Gujarat High Court High Court

Jayeshbhai vs State on 6 July, 2011

Gujarat High Court
Jayeshbhai vs State on 6 July, 2011
Author: M.R. Shah,
  
 Gujarat High Court Case Information System 
    
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

CR.RA/269/2011	 2/ 2	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

CRIMINAL
REVISION APPLICATION No. 269 of 2011
 

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


 

JAYESHBHAI
MOHANBHAI PARMAR - Applicant
 

Versus
 

STATE
OF GUJARAT & 2 - Respondents
 

======================================
Appearance : 
MR
HARSHAD K PATEL for the Applicant. 
MR KP RAWAL, APP for Respondent
No.1. 
None for Respondent Nos.2 -
3. 
====================================== 

 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH
		
	

 

Date
: 06/07/2011 

 

 
ORAL
ORDER

1. The
present Criminal Revision Application has been preferred by the
petitioner herein challenging the impugned order dated 15/04/2011
passed by learned Additional Judge, Family Court, Vadodara in
Criminal Misc.Application No.2980/2010, by which, the petitioner was
directed to pay Rs.2,000/- per month to respondent No.2 and
Rs.1,000/- per month to the minor – respondent No.3 by way of
interim maintenance.

2. Having
heard Mr.Harshad Patel, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the
petitioner and considering the impugned order of interim maintenance
awarding total a sum of Rs.3,000/-, it cannot be said that the
learned Judge has committed any error and/or illegality in awarding
total a sum of Rs.3,000/- to respondent Nos.2 & 3 by way of
interim maintenance.

3. Mr.Harshad
Patel, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has
relied upon the appointment letter of the petitioner dated 08/12/2010
in support of his submission that his salary is Rs.5,000/- per month.
However, it appears that nothing is on record that such document was
produced before the learned Trial Court or not. In any way
considering the price rise and cost of living and considering the
fact that respondent No.3 is a minor, no case is made out to
interfere with the order of interim maintenance passed by the learned
Trial Court.

4. In
view of the above, there is no substance in the present application
and the same deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.

[M.R.SHAH,J]

*dipti

   

Top