Gujarat High Court High Court

Vijay vs State on 12 November, 2008

Gujarat High Court
Vijay vs State on 12 November, 2008
Author: D.H.Waghela,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

CR.RA/467/2008	 2/ 2	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

CRIMINAL
REVISION APPLICATION No. 467 of 2008
 

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

VIJAY
BABULAL GAJJAR - Applicant(s)
 

Versus
 

STATE
OF GUJARAT & 1 - Respondent(s)
 

==================================================
 
Appearance : 
MR
HRIDAY BUCH for Applicant(s) : 1, 
MR. I M
PANDYA, ADD.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for Respondent(s) : 1, 
None for
Respondent(s) : 2, 
==========================================
 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE D.H.WAGHELA
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 12/11/2008 

 

 
 
ORAL
ORDER

By
invoking the provisions of Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioner has sought to challenge the
order dated 01.05.2008 of the Family Court, Ahmedabad in Criminal
Misc. Application No. 2886 of 2006 whereby interim maintenance of Rs.
3500/- is ordered to be paid to the wife of the petitioner under the
provisions of Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Admittedly,
the impugned order is made below application Exh. 5 in the main
application which is pending since the year 2006. It has also come on
record that the original applicant has already filed further
application under the provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 125
and notice of hearing is issued therein. Under the circumstances, it
is open for the petitioner to have the main application expeditiously
heard and decided by the Family Court. Having regard to the facts and
circumstances, the averments made in the original application Exh. 5
and the relevant factors considered by the Court in making the
impugned order, there is no reason or justification to interfere with
the impugned order. Therefore, the petition is summarily dismissed.

(D.H.WAGHELA,J)

niru*

   

Top