Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCR.A/933/2011 2/ 2 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 933 of 2011
======================================
SIKANDAR
MOTIBHAI QURESHI - Applicant
Versus
SHABANABANU
D/O MOHHAMMAD RAFIK SHAIKH & 1 - Respondents
======================================
Appearance :
MR
FEROZ H PATHAN for the Applicant.
None for Respondent No.1.
MR
KP RAWAL, APP for Respondent
No.2.
======================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH
Date
: 12/07/2011
ORAL
ORDER
1. By
way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
the petitioner – husband has prayed to quash and set aside the
impugned order dated 11/03/2011 passed by learned Principal Judge,
Family Court No.1, Ahmedabad passed below Exh.19 in Criminal
Misc.Application No.1346/2007, by which, learned Judge has directed
the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- per month to respondent
No.1 – wife towards maintenance.
2. Mr.Pathak,
learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has vehemently
submitted that there is a marriage span of four months only and the
petitioner is required to look after his old aged parents and,
therefore, learned Family Court has materially erred in awarding
Rs.2,000/- per month to respondent No.1- wife towards maintenance.
3. Having
heard learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner and
considering the impugned order in awarding Rs.2,000/- per month to
respondent No.1 – wife towards maintenance and in the facts and
circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that the learned Family
Court has committed any error and/or illegality in awarding the
amount, which is too excessive and which is required to be
interfered with by this Court in exercise of power under Article 226
of the Constitution of India.
4. Now
so far as contention on behalf of the petitioner that the marriage
span is four months only is concerned, the same is insignificant
while considering the application for maintenance under Section 125
of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In these hard days and price rise,
etc. and considering the fact that the petitioner is rickshaw driver
of the Transport Vehicle in Industrial area, it cannot be said that
the learned Family Court has committed any error in awarding
Rs.2,000/- per month towards maintenance to the respondent No.1-
wife. No case is made out to interfere with the order passed by the
learned Family Court, Ahmedabad.
5. In
view of the above, there is no substance in the present petition,
which deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.
[M.R.SHAH,J]
*dipti
Top