Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCR.A/1880/2009 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 1880 of 2009
=======================================================
NITINBHAI
DHAULATSINH KAMALIYA - Applicant(s)
Versus
ALKABEN
NITINBHAI KAMALIYA & 3 - Respondent(s)
=======================================================
Appearance :
MR
ANAND B GOGIA for Applicant(s) : 1, MR RB GOGIA for
Applicant(s) : 1, MR BB GOGIA for Applicant(s) :
1,
MR SANDEEP N BHATT for Respondent(s) : 1 - 3.
MR RC KODEKAR
APP for Respondent(s) :
4,
=======================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
Date
: 17/02/2010
ORAL
ORDER
Heard
learned counsel for the parties for final disposal of this petition.
The petitioner has challenged an order dated 12th August,
2009 passed by the Learned Family Court, Rajkot. By the said order,
the petitioner is directed to pay Rs.3,500/- per month to his
daughter and Rs.2,500/- per month to his minor son by way of
maintenance.
The
maintenance application was filed by the wife of the petitioner for
herself and for two children. Learned Judge of the Family Court found
that the wife is earning sufficient income. Her prayer was rejected.
For the children, however, above mentioned order was passed.
Having
heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material
on record, I find that admittedly, the petitioner is not unemployed
and has other income by running Maruti Van to pick and drop the
children from home to school. It was also not in dispute that the
wife is engaged as a Teacher and is drawing regular pay scale. She is
therefore earning sufficiently to support herself. It is also not in
dispute that by now, the daughter of the petitioner has crossed 18
years of age. Admittedly, she was below 18 years of age on the date
of application, which was 19.04.2008. She attained the majority about
an year later. Learned counsel is therefore justified in pointing out
that after attaining the age of 18 years, she is not entitled to
maintenance under Section 125 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure. In so far as the minor son is
concerned, he is undisputably entitled to maintenance.
Considering
the above aspects of the matter, taking into totality of the facts
and circumstances, the order of the Family Court is modified in
following terms :-
(1) The
daughter of the petitioner shall receive maintainable at the rate of
Rs.2,500/- per month from the date of application only till she
crossed 18 years of age. For the same period, the son of the
petitioner shall also receive maintenance at the rate of Rs.2,500/-;
(2) After
the said date i.e. the date from which the petitioner shall not pay
maintainable to his daughter, his son shall receive maintainable at
the rate of Rs.3,000/- per month.
(3) Arrears
as per this order shall be cleared latest by 31st March,
2010 and on that condition, there shall be no cursive recovery.
In
the result, the petition is disposed of accordingly.
(AKIL
KURESHI,J.)
/patil
Top