Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.RA/5/2011 2/ 2 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
REVISION APPLICATION No.5 of 2011
=========================================================
SANDIP
ROHITBHAI DESAI - Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 1 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
SP MAJMUDAR for
Applicant(s) : 1,MR PP MAJMUDAR for Applicant : 1
MR DC SEJPAL,
APP for Respondent(s) : 1,
None for Respondent(s) :
2,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
Date
: 19/01/2011
ORAL
ORDER
The
petitioner is the son of respondent No.2. Mother had filed
application for maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 claiming that she has no source of income and unable
to sustain herself and also that the son is having substantial
income, despite which he has driven her out of the house and
ill-treated her. Mother had filed the above application seeking
monthly maintenance of Rs.10,000/- from the son. Before the Family
Court both sides led evidence. In particular, in the deposition, the
petitioner-son himself had made certain significant admissions.
Through his deposition it has come on record that he is residing in a
four bed-rooms house, which is of his ownership. His father died long
back. He admitted that he is land broker and earns Rs.7,000/- to
8,000/- p.m. from such activities. Additionally, he gets Rs.15,000/-
annually from agricultural income and Rs.700/- p.m. by way of rent.
He agreed that the family land was converted in his exclusive name by
deleting name of the mother, through a release deed. Though he
claimed that for such release mother was paid a sum of Rs.15 lac, he
admitted that he has nothing to show that such amount was actually
paid. He admitted that through his agricultural land gas pipeline was
laid for which he has received first installment of Rs.3.75 lac
through cheque and two cheques are yet to be received.
From
the above facts itself, it appears that the petitioner is not a
pauper. He has substantial income and properties. He resides in a
four bed-rooms house. He has agricultural land. He does business of
land broking. Only for laying the pipelines under his land, as part
of compensation, he has received first installment of Rs.3.75 lac,
other two installments are yet to be received. On the basis of such
evidence if the Court below found that monthly maintenance of
Rs.6,000/- to the mother would be justified, I see no perversity in
such finding. Mother had relinquished her right from the agricultural
property, the petitioner has not been able to produce anything to
show that the mother was paid any amount for such release. Taking
into consideration the above facts of the case, I see no reason to
interfere. The petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
[AKIL
KURESHI, J]
***
Bhavesh*
Top