Gujarat High Court High Court

Ravindrasinh vs State on 3 August, 2011

Gujarat High Court
Ravindrasinh vs State on 3 August, 2011
Author: M.R. Shah,
  
 Gujarat High Court Case Information System 
    
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

CR.MA/9986/2011	 2/ 2	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 9986 of 2011
 

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

RAVINDRASINH
A CHAUHAN - Applicant(s)
 

Versus
 

STATE
OF GUJARAT & 1 - Respondent(s)
 

========================================= 
Appearance
: 
MR MANAV A
MEHTA for
Applicant(s) : 1, 
MR KP RAVAL, ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for
Respondent(s) : 1, 
None for Respondent(s) :
2, 
=========================================
 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH
		
	

 

Date
: 03/08/2011 

 

ORAL
ORDER

1. Present
application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
(hereinafter referred to as “CrPC”) has been preferred by
the applicant – husband to quash and set aside the impugned
judgment and order dated 31.05.2011 passed by the learned Sessions
Judge, Panchmahals in Criminal Revision Application No.103/2010 as
well as the order dated 28.09.2010 passed by the learned JMFC, Kalol
in Criminal Revision Application No.148/2008, by which the applicant
is directed to pay a sum of Rs.800/- per month only to respondent
No.2 – wife towards maintenance.

2. Having
heard Shri Manav Mehta, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the
applicant and considering the impugned orders passed by both the
Courts below and considering the fact that only a sum of Rs.800/- per
month is awarded by way of maintenance to respondent wife, no case is
made out to interfere with the orders passed by both the Courts
below. There are concurrent findings given by both the Courts below
with respect to the income as well as desertion by the applicant
which are not required to be interfered by this Court in exercise of
powers under Article 227 read with Section 482 of the CrPC. On the
contrary, looking to the price rise and value of money etc., amount
of Rs.800/- per month only towards maintenance can be said to be on
lower side. In any case, no case is made out to interfere with the
impugned orders.

3. In
view of the above, there is no substance in the present application
which deserves to be dismissed and is, accordingly, dismissed.

(M.R.

Shah, J.)

*menon

   

Top