Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.RA/327/2010 2/ 2 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
REVISION APPLICATION No. 327 of 2010
=========================================================
NANAKRAM
KUNDANDAS KRUPLANI - Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 1 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MS.FALGUNI
D.TRIVEDI for
Applicant(s) : 1,
MR MG NANAVATI ADDL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for
Respondent(s) : 1,
MR DJ BHATT for Respondent(s) :
2,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
Date
: 12/08/2010
ORAL
ORDER
Heard
learned advocates for the parties.
Petitioner
is husband of the respondent No.2. The petitioner had approached the
Court of learned Magistrate under the Protection of Women from
Domestic Violence Act, 2005 seeking maintenance for herself and minor
child aged four and half years. Learned Magistrate by his order dated
21.08.2009 directed the petitioner to pay maintenance of Rs.2500/- to
the wife and Rs.1000/- to the child every month. Petitioner,
aggrieved by the said order, therefore, approached the Sessions Court
in Criminal Appeal No.222 of 2009 and the learned Sessions Judge
dismissed the said appeal by judgment dated 21.04.2009 and hence the
present petition.
Having
heard learned advocates for the parties and perused the judgment
under consideration, I find that before the learned Magistrate,
witness examined by the husband at Exh.37 stated in his cross
examination that the husband was selling approximately 300 cloths
pairs of shirts and pants. It is an admitted position that the
husband is hawker selling shirts and pants pieces in the city of
Rajkot. In his deposition also, the husband had stated that he earns
Rs.2500/- per month every day and he sells goods worth Rs.7000
8000/-.
By
very nature of business, in such cases, no documentary evidence of
proof of income of the husband would be available to either to the
wife or even to the husband to produce it before the Court. Some
amount of estimation is, therefore, necessary and inevitable.
When
the husband himself admitted that he sells cloths worth Rs.7,00
8,00/- per day and when own wholesale supplier stated before the
Court that the husband sells 300 pairs of shirts and pants pieces of
approximately, it can be safely presumed that he would be earning
Rs.6000 to 7000/- per month. Moreover, the husband has not pointed
out any additional other liability. Thus, conservative estimate I
have arrived at taking into the possibility that the husband may not
be able to do his business for some days and on holidays. Under the
circumstances, in partial modification of the orders passed by the
Courts below, it is directed that the petitioner shall pay Rs.2500/-
to the wife and Rs.500/- to the child by way of maintenance.
Orders
under challenge stand modified accordingly. Petition stands disposed
of accordingly.
(
AKIL KURESHI, J. )
kailash
Top