Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCR.A/30/2009 2/ 2 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 30 of 2009
=========================================================
SHAUKAT
MUHAMMED YUSUF JARDAWALA - Applicant(s)
Versus
ABEDA
D/O HAJI ABDURRAHIM SABU & 1 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
MA KHARADI for
Applicant(s) : 1,
MR ASHISH M DAGLI for Respondent(s) : 1,
MR
KARTIK PANDYA, APP for Respondent(s) :
2,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
Date
: 25/01/2010
ORAL
ORDER
Petitioner
has challenged an order dated 23.10.07 passed by the learned
Magistrate, First Class, directing him to pay lump-sum amount of Rs.2
lakhs to his wife towards permanent alimony. This petition is sought
to be argued on various grounds particularly on the ground that
there was no divorce between the petitioner and his wife and
therefore Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act 1986
would not be applicable and the wife may have to approach the Court
under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure code. It was further
submitted that the amount was disproportionately large and the
quantum is fixed without any basis.
Having
heard the learned advocates appearing for the parties, however, I
find that the petitioner himself had signed document dated 29.4.06
jointly on a stamp paper which records that there has been a divorce
and all belongings, etc. have been exchanged between the parties.
When the petitioner himself was signatory of such documents, he now
cannot turn around and contend that there was no divorce between the
parties. The first contention is, therefore, negatived. With
respect to the capacity of the petitioner to pay, counsel for the
petitioner fairly stated that the petitioner is presently at South
Africa and is unlikely to return soon. Nothing is brought on record
to suggest that he is unable to pay the amount as directed by the
concerned Court. On both counts, the petition fails and is liable to
be dismissed. The petitioner shall, however, have time upto 30th
June 2010 to pay arrears on condition that he shall further pay a sum
of Rs.10,000/- by way of delayed payment. In case the petitioner
fails to discharge the debt within the time permitted, it will be
open for the wife to seek recovery including interest for the
delayed payment in accordance with law.
The
petition is disposed of accordingly.
(Akil
Kureshi, J.)
(vjn)
Top