Gujarat High Court High Court

Rameshkumar vs Kantaben on 30 July, 2010

Gujarat High Court
Rameshkumar vs Kantaben on 30 July, 2010
Author: Akil Kureshi,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

CR.RA/335/2009	 2/ 2	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

CRIMINAL
REVISION APPLICATION No. 335 of 2009
 

 
 
=========================================================

 

RAMESHKUMAR
TULSIDAS VACHHANI - Applicant(s)
 

Versus
 

KANTABEN
TULSIDAS VACHHANI & 1 - Respondent(s)
 

=========================================================
 
Appearance
: 
MS
SEJAL K MANDAVIA for
Applicant(s) : 1, 
MR NIRAV C THAKKAR for Respondent(s) : 1, 
MS
ML SHAH, APP for Respondent(s) :
2, 
=========================================================


 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 30/07/2010 

 

 
 
ORAL
ORDER

Petitioner
is son of respondent no.1. He has challenged an order dated 14.5.2009
passed by learned Family Court, Rajkot in Criminal Misc. Application
No. 693/2008. By the said order he is directed to pay maintenance of
Rs. 5000/- per month to the mother. Counsel for the petitioner
submitted that the petitioner is ready to take care of his mother by
taking her with him. Petitioner further submitted that amount of
maintenance fixed is excessive.

Though
called out more than once, learned counsel for respondent no.1 was
absent all through out. I have heard learned APP for the State.

From
the material on record, it is clear that petitioner is engaged as a
professor in a college at Junagadh. In the judgement of the Family
Court itself it is recorded that even at that time he was earning
Rs.35000/- per month. Direction for payment of Rs. 5000/- to the
mother therefore, cannot be stated to be excessive even if the
petitioner has other liabilities.

With
respect to the suggestion that the mother resides with sister, it
maybe noted that under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
it is the primary duty of the son who is otherwise also earning
substantial income to look after the aged mother. The petitioner’s
willingness to take mother with him cannot be the ground for refusing
maintenance particularly, when even through conciliation officer,
settlement between the parties could not be brought about.

Considering
all theses aspects of the matter, petition is dismissed.

(Akil
Kureshi,J.)

(raghu)

   

Top