Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCR.A/77/2010 2/ 2 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 77 of 2010
=========================================================
RAMESHBHAI
JIVRAJBHAI VAGHELA - Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 2 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
VISHAL MEHTA FOR MR AJ SHASTRI
for
Applicant(s) : 1,
MR LB DABHI ADDL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for
Respondent(s) : 1,
MR ASHWIN R.PATEL FOR MR SANDEEP N BHATT for
Respondent(s) : 2,
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for Respondent(s) :
3,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH
Date
: 06/07/2011
ORAL
ORDER
By
way of this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,
the petitioner has prayed for appropriate writ, order and/or
direction – husband has challenged the impugned order
dtd.17/11/2009 passed by the learned Family Court, Rajkot in
Criminal Misc. Application No.219 of of 2008, by which the learned
Judge has partly allowed the said application submitted by the
respondent Nos.2 and 3, under
section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
for maintenance, and has directed the petitioner
– husband to pay a sum of Rs.2500/- per month to the
respondent No.2 – wife and Rs.1300/- per month to the
respondent No.3 minor child, who was aged about 10 months, towards
maintenance.
Having
heard Mr.Vishal Mehta, learned advocate appearing for Mr.A.J.
Shastri, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner
– husband, Mr.Ashwin Patel, learned advocate appearing for
Mr.Sandip Bhatt, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the
respondent Nos.2 and 3 – wife and minor child and Mr.L.B.
Dabhi, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1 –
State and considering the impugned order and considerings the fact
that the admittedly the petitioner
is doing masonry
work, and hence he can earn at least Rs.200/- to 250/-
per day, and looking to the age of the respondent No.3 minor, and
considering the price rise and inflation, in these hard days,
awarding of maintenance by the learned Family Court at the rate of
Rs.2500/- to the respondent No.2 wife, per month and Rs.1300/- per
month to the respondent No.3 minor, in all Rs.2500/- cannot be said
to be too excessive. The impugned order is just, legal and proper
and no interference of this Court is called for in exercise of
powers under Article 227 of the Constitution
of India.
In
view of the above and for the reasons stated above, there is no
substance in the present petition, and the same deserves to be
dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. Notice is discharged.
Interim relief, if any, stands vacated forthwith.
[M.R.
SHAH, J.]
rafik
Top