Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCR.A/1575/2009 1/ 2 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 1575 of 2009
=======================================================
KAUSHIKBHAI
DHULABHAI DARJI - Applicant(s)
Versus
PRAGYABEN
KAUSHIKBHAI DARJI & 1 - Respondent(s)
=======================================================
Appearance :
MR
BHARAT JANI for Applicant(s) : 1,
MR JIGAR G GADHAVI for
Respondent(s) : 1,
MR KP RAVAL APP for Respondent(s) :
2,
=======================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
Date
: 03/02/2010
ORAL
ORDER
Heard
learned counsel for the parties for final disposal of the matter.
The
petitioner is the husband of the respondent no.1. He has challenged
the order dated 01.06.2009 passed by the Learned Presiding Officer &
Additional Sessions Judge, 2nd Fast Track Court, Mehsana
in Criminal Revision Application No.47/2009, by which, maintenance
payable to wife is increased from Rs.600/- per month to Rs.1,200/-
per month. Rs.600/- was fixed by the Magistrate by his order dated
25.02.2009 passed by the Learned Additional Civil Judge &
Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Mehsana in Criminal Misc.
Application No.730/2007.
Learned
counsel for the petitioner submitted that two minor children of the
couple are with the husband and his income is Rs.2,150/- per month
from doing clerical work in the Milk Cooperative Society. Salary
certificate is also produced on record. However, the Learned
Additional Sessions Judge enhanced the maintenance to Rs.1,200/-
without any evidence.
Learned
counsel for the wife submitted that it is difficult to survive in a
small allowance of Rs.600/- per month and husband is also doing work
in addition to his service. He was also getting extra income from
Seed Centre run by the Milk Cooperative Society. Husband also owns
properties.
From
the record, it appears that Seed Centre was closed down in the year
2007. The petitioner is drawing monthly salary of Rs.2,150/- from the
Milk Cooperative Society. There is no evidence regarding his income
from tailoring work. There is no evidence regarding ownership of
immovable property or agricultural land. In that view of the matter,
apportionment of Rs.1,200/- to the wife out of salary of Rs.2,150/-
from which the petitioner has to maintain himself and his two
children would be excessive.
The
order of the Learned Sessions Judge is, therefore, quashed and the
order passed by the Learned Magistrate is restored. It is, however,
clarified that the above reduction is on the basis of the evidence
available on record. At present, if the wife can produce some
evidence of additional income of the petition, it will be open for
her to apply for increase in the maintenance. Both the sides may also
try to settle the disputes. Disposed of accordingly.
(AKIL
KURESHI,J.)
/patil
Top