Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.RA/400/2010 5/ 5 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
REVISION APPLICATION No. 400 of 2010
With
SPECIAL
CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 1455 of 2010
=========================================================
PREMILABEN
PARMESHVAR SONVANE & 1 - Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 1 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
MP SHAH for
Applicant(s) : 1 - 2.MS. KRUTI M SHAH for Applicant(s) : 1 - 2.
in Cr. Revision Application No. 400 of 2010 and for respondent No.2
and 3 in Spl. Cr. Appln. No.1445 of 2010.
MR KARTIK PANDYA, APP
for Respondent(s) : 1,
MR PP MAJMUDAR for the petitioner in
Spl.Cr. Appln. No.1445 of 2010 and for Respondent(s) : 2 in Cr.
Revision Appln. NO.400 of
2010.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
Date
: 21/10/2010
ORAL
ORDER
These
are cross petitions. Criminal Revision Application No.400 of 2010
has been filed by wife and daughter of respondent No.2 (they shall
be hereinafter to be referred to respectively accordingly).
Respondent No.2 (hereinafter to be referred to as ‘the husband’) has
filed Special Criminal Application No.1455 of 2010. Both sides are
challenging the same judgment of the Family Court, Surat dated 24th
June 2010 passed in Criminal Misc. Application No.16 of 2008.
Between
the husband and the wife, matrimonial disputes developed. Wife
thereupon had to seek maintenance under section 125 of the Criminal
Procedure Code. The same was granted at the rate of Rs.500/- and
Rs.300/- per month to the wife and the daughter respectively. She
thereupon filed for application for enhancement of maintenance under
section 127 of the Criminal Procedure Code on 12.9.2002. Thereafter
on behalf of the minor application Ex.47 was filed before the
Family Court stating, inter alia, that in the application under
section 127, maintenance at the rate of Rs.3500/- per month was
claimed in favour of the daughter. However, thereafter, cost of
education has gone up considerably and she may therefore be granted
maintenance at the rate of Rs.9,000/- per month. This application
was kept for hearing along with the main matter. Finally, the
learned Judge passed the impugned order awarding Rs.3500/- per month
to each of the claimants by way of maintenance. Both sides have
challenged this order. Whereas the case of the wife and the daughter
is that they are entitled to higher maintenance, case of the
husband is that increase granted by the Family Court ought not to
have been applied from the date of the application i.e. 12.9.2002.
It is also the case of the husband that the daughter after crossing
18 years of age cannot get maintenance under section 125 of the
Criminal Procedure Code.
It
is not in dispute that presently, the husband is employed as
Tradesman in Kakrapar Atomic Station. His salary slip for the month
of March 2010 reveals that he earns gross salary of Rs.27,271/-. Of
course, there would be certain compulsory deductions such as, income
tax, etc. which the husband would have to pay, which would to some
extent reduce the said income. Nonetheless, considering his sizable
take-home salary of approximately Rs.25,000/- as of now, the
maintenance required to be paid to the wife and the daughter needs
to be worked out. While doing so, one must bear in mind that in the
year 2002, the income of the husband would not have been as much as
his present income. Simultaneously, I am conscious of the fact that
the daughter admittedly crossed 18 years of age on 23rd
September 2010. As per section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code,
therefore, thereafter there cannot be any maintenance from the
father under the said provision at least.
On
the one hand, I would have to, therefore, provide for reduced
maintenance in favour of the wife and daughter from the year 2002,
on the other, at least under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure
Code, the daughter would cease to get maintenance after she
became major. This would lead to a larger saving for the husband.
The wife, therefore, could legitimately seek higher maintenance from
the husband. I am conscious that the wife has not prayed for
maintenance higher than that of Rs.3500/- per month. This was,
however, on the basis that she yielded to her daughter’s larger
demand and greater need considering the young age and education that
she is pursuing. Simultaneously, I may also record that if the case
of husband is that the moment the daughter turns 18, she will not be
entitled to maintenance, he may have to move application under
section 127 of the Code and the wife also could file application
under section 127 for higher maintenance for her. However, in such
issues where question of sustenance of the wife and the daughter are
concerned which touches directly the human lives and when relevant
facts are undisputed, such extra-technical approach would not be
justified.
Under
the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the husband should pay
maintenance to his wife and daughter at the rate of Rs.2500/- (Two
thousand five hundred only) and Rs.1500/- (One thousand five hundred
only) from 12.9.2002 till 1.1.2005. From 1.1.2005, he shall pay
maintenance at the rate of Rs.2500/- (Two thousand five hundred only)
each till 1st January 2009 (around the time when the
6th Pay Commission recommendations were implemented in
Government and Semi Government organizations of course with
retrospective effect). From 1st January 2009 till 23rd
September 2010, he shall pay maintenance to the wife at the rate of
Rs.3500/- (Three thousand five hundred only) and to the daughter at
the rate of Rs.5000/- (Five thousand only). From 24th
September 2010 onwards, the husband shall pay maintenance to the wife
at the rate of Rs.9,000/- (Nine thousand only) per month. The
daughter from the said date onwards shall not get any maintenance
under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
In
Special Criminal Application No.1455 of 2010, under order dated
1.9.2010 passed by this Court, the husband has deposited a sum of
Rs.50,000/- before the Family Court, which shall be paid over to the
wife, if not already done so, without waiting for the no objection
from the husband which shall be adjusted towards arrears.
On
condition that the husband deposits further sum of Rs.25,000/- with
the Family Court, Surat latest by 29th October 2010 and
thereafter clears the entire arrears as per this order in four equal
installments falling due once every alternate month, first of which
will fall due on 1st December 2010 and continues to pay
the prospective maintenance to the wife regularly, there shall be no
coercive recovery against him, failing which it will be open for the
Family Court to recover the same in accordance with law.
Both
the petitions stand disposed of accordingly.
(Akil
Kureshi, J.)
(vjn)
Top
