Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCR.A/1187/2010 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 1187 of 2010
=========================================================
RAMESHBHAI
FULCHAND PORWAL - Applicant(s)
Versus
VAISHALIBEN
PORWAL & 2 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
PB KHANDHERIA for
Applicant(s) : 1,
MR BD KARIA for Respondent(s) : 1 - 2.
MR JK
SHAH, APP for Respondent(s) :
3,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
Date
: 17/01/2011
ORAL
ORDER
RULE.
Learned A.P.P. waives service of rule on behalf of the
respondent-State and Mr.Karia, learned Counsel, waives service on
behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2.
Petitioner
is husband of respondent No.1 and father of minor respondent No.2. He
has challenged the order dated 28.04.2010 passed by learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Surendranagar in Criminal Revision
Application No.66 of 2009.
Respondents
had filed application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 being Criminal Misc. Application No.55 of 2008 before
the concerned magistrate seeking maintenance from the petitioner.
Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Surendranagar vide order dated
29.06.2009 granted Rs.2,000/- and Rs.1,000/- p.m. in favour of
respondent Nos.1 and 2 respectively. Petitioner did not challenge the
said order. Respondents, however, desired enhancement. They,
therefore, filed revision application being Criminal Revision
Application No.66 of 2009 before the Sessions Court. Learned
Additional Sessions Judge passed the impugned order dated 28.04.2010
awarding Rs.5,000/- and Rs.2,000/- p.m. in favour of respondent Nos.1
and 2 respectively. Hence, the petition.
From
the perusal of the documents and the orders on record, it appears
that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has enhanced the monthly
maintenance in favour of the respondents without assigning any
reasons. Ordinarily, therefore, I would have remanded the proceedings
before the Sessions Court. However,
in the present case, unfortunately, the petitioner, after recording
of evidence of the wife, had not led any evidence of his side. In the
interest of justice, therefore, proceedings be remanded to the
concerned learned magistrate for fresh hearing and disposal,
permitting both the sides to lead evidence, if they so desire. In the
meantime, the petitioner must continue to pay maintenance as fixed by
the Sessions Court.
In
the result the petition is disposed of with the following directions:
both
the order dated 29.06.2009 passed by learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Surendranagar in Criminal Misc. Application No.55 of
2008 and order dated 28.04.2010 passed by learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Surendranagar in Criminal Revision Application No.66
of 2009 are set aside;
proceedings
are remanded for fresh hearing and disposal and after giving
opportunity of leading evidence to both sides;
such
remanded proceedings be disposed of expeditiously, preferably by
30.04.2011;
both
sides shall co-operate with early disposal of hearing;
till
learned magistrate passes a fresh order, the petitioner shall
continue to pay maintenance, as fixed by the Sessions Court.
Needless to state that learned magistrate shall dispose of the said
proceedings without being influence by this order or by the order of
Sessions Court;
The
petitioner shall also pay costs of Rs.5,000/- to the respondents
within a period of four weeks from today.
Rule
is made absolute accordingly.
Sd/-
[AKIL
KURESHI, J]
Bhavesh*
Top