Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.RA/97/2010 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
REVISION APPLICATION No. 97 of 2010
=========================================================
MURTUZABHAI
ESUFBHAI PUNAWALA - Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 3 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance :
MR
ABHIRAJ R TRIVEDI for Applicant(s) : 1,
MS MANISHA L.SHAH, APP for
Respondent(s) : 1,
None for Respondent(s) : 2 -
4.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
Date
: 13/07/2010
ORAL
ORDER
Petitioner
is the husband of respondent No.2 and father of minor children
respondent Nos. 3 and 4 aged 8 years and 5 years respectively. He
has been directed to pay Rs.3,000/- to the wife and Rs.2,000/- each
to the minor children to every month thus, total maintenance to be
paid is Rs.7,000/- per month. He has challenged the said order
passed by the Family Judge, Surat dated 8.1.2010 in the present
petition.
Counsel
for the petitioner submitted that amount of maintenance fixed is
excessive. The petitioner is doing business in photocopy. His total
income would not justify the payment of such high maintenance. He
drew my attention to the relevant discussion in the judgment as well
as on documents on record.
In
the impugned order, learned Judge has found that the petitioner
along with his father and other relatives, is a joint owner of Shop
Nos. B-12, 13 and 14 in the basement of the ‘Saifi Complex’ and
another Shop bearing Shop No. S-1 in the second floor of the said
complex, members of the family have also purchased the agricultural
land. The learned Judge has further recorded that the petitioner had
a Bank account in ICICI Bank. He had received commission of
Hindustan Lever Company during the period between 2004 2007. He
also had bank account in Bank of Baroda and Standard Chartered Bank
as well as in Surat National Co. Op. Bank Ltd. For opening a bank
account in the ICICI Bank, he had given an address of Lucky
Stationary and Xerox. The wife had also produced photograph of the
shop and offices, situated at ‘Saifi Complex’. In the form filled
with the Surat Municipal Corporation, the petitioner claimed himself
to be the owner of Badri Xerox. Counsel for the petitioner stated
that petitioner resides in the joint family with his father.
From
the above evidence noted by the learned Judge, it can clearly be
seen that the petitioner has considerable means of income. He along
with other family members holds immovable proprieties in the city of
Surat. He has several bank accounts. He was the owner of business
called Badri Xerox. His assertion that he is unable to maintain his
wife and minor children, therefore, cannot be believed.
Counsel
for the petitioner, however, submitted that it was the prime duty of
the wife to prove the exact income of the husband which she failed
to do. I am afraid in maintenance proceedings under Section 125 of
Cr.P.C. such strict requirement are not insisted upon by the Courts.
By very nature of things, the nature of summary proceedings
conducted under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. while dealing with
maintenance application the entire burden of proving the income of
the husband can never be thrown upon the wife. In the present case,
when the wife has been able to bring some material on record to show
that the husband in addition to being a co-owner of several valuable
immovable properties in city of Surat also had declared himself to
be the owner of xeroxing business, award of maintenance of
Rs.3,000/- to the wife and Rs.2,000/- each to minor children cannot
be disturbed. Additionally, petitioner himself has never produced
any reliable material to show his income and the source thereof. His
bald assertion that he is employed in xerox shop owned by his father
has been rightly discarded by the learned Judge.
In
the result, petition fails and dismissed.
(AKIL
KURESHI, J.)
(ashish)
Top