Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.RA/575/2010 2/ 2 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
REVISION APPLICATION No. 575 of 2010
=========================================
MADHUBEN
RAMAYANSING YADAV - Applicant(s)
Versus
RAMAYANSING
RAMCHANDRA YADAV & 1 - Respondent(s)
=========================================
Appearance :
MR
BC DAVE for
Applicant(s) : 1,
MR KUNAL B DAVE for Applicant(s) : 1,
None
for Respondent(s) : 1,
MR KP RAVAL, APP for Respondent(s) :
2,
=========================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH
Date
: 02/12/2010
ORAL
ORDER
1. The
present application under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred by the applicant-widow
to quash and set aside the impugned judgement and order dated
11/10/2010 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Surat
in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 860/2008 by which the
learned Family Court has dismissed/rejected the application submitted
by the applicant for getting maintenance from the respondent under
Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
2. From
the impugned judgement and order passed by the learned Family Court
and considering the deposition of the witnesses, more particularly,
the deposition of the son of the applicant, it appears that one
property, Maruti Industry, is owned by the applicant and is rented
at the rate of Rs. 12,000/- per month. It has come on record that as
such the applicant was residing with her son and though her son was
recovering the rent of Rs. 12,000/- per month on her behalf as he
paid the said rent to her only up to June, 2008 and thereafter he has
stopped paying the rent though the same was recovered for and on
behalf of the applicant. In the cross examination of the son of the
applicant it is specifically stated that he is recovering the rent
out of the said building for and on behalf of his mother and in turn
he is paying the same to the applicant. Thus, when the applicant
has sufficient means to maintain herself out of the rent amount from
the aforesaid property and considering the same when the learned
Family Court has dismissed the application under Section 125 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure Code it cannot be said that the learned
Family Court has committed an error and/or illegality, which calls
for the interference of the revisional jurisdiction. It is not in
dispute that the property stands in the name of the applicant and
assuming that her son is recovering the said rent for and on behalf
of the applicant and is not paying the same to the applicant, it
will always be open for the applicant to straightaway recover the
rent from the tenant by issuing notice and calling upon the tenant to
pay the rent to the applicant directly and not to pay the same to any
other person inclusive of her son and the same can be taken care.
3. In
view of the aforesaid observation made in the last paragraph, Shri
B.C. Dave, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant does
not press the present application as the applicant proposes to issue
appropriate notice to the tenant to straightaway pay rent to her.
Permission is accordingly granted. The present application is
dismissed as withdrawn.
(M.R.
SHAH, J.)
siji
Top