VISHNUBHAI BALDEVBHAI PARMAR vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

R/SCR.A/1955/2011 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1955 of 2011

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.D.KOTHARI

================================================================ 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ================================================================ VISHNUBHAI BALDEVBHAI PARMAR....Applicant(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & 3....Respondent(s) ================================================================ Appearance: MR ANKIT Y BACHANI, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR NEHUL L DAVE, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 2 MS RENU D CHAUDHARY, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 2 NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 3 - 4 MR KP RAVAL, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ================================================================ CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.D.KOTHARI

Date : 12/06/2014

Page 1 of 4

R/SCR.A/1955/2011 JUDGMENT ORAL JUDGMENT 1. Rule. Learned APP Mr.K.P.Raval waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent No.1 – State and learned advocate Mr.Ankit Bachani waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent No.2. 2. By way of present petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., the petitioner challenges the order passed by the Judge, Family Court No.2, Ahmedabad in Criminal Misc. Application No.2268 of 2007, whereby the petitioner herein was directed to pay Rs.700/- each to his two daughters and Rs.1000/- to the respondent No.2 wife. 3. Heard learned advocates appearing on behalf of respective parties. 4. It appears that marriage has taken place between the parties around the year 2000. Initially i.e. for the period of about 3 years, the marriage life between the parties was normal and good. It is the say of the respondent– wife that trouble started when the respondent– wife become pregnant. That applicant’s family began to harass the respondent– wife and she was asked to go to her parents house for delivery. The petitioner is a rickshaw driver. The difference between parties had led the respondent - wife to file the maintenance application. Before the trial court, parties have led the evidence and in order under challenge, the trial court had elaborately considered the case of the parties and has recorded the conclusion as referred above. Page 2 of 4

R/SCR.A/1955/2011 JUDGMENT 5. Learned advocate for the petitioner has conceded that the petitioner has no objection for paying the maintenance to the daughters. It was submitted that present petition is filed challenging the maintenance qua his wife. The principal objection is alleged illicit relationship of applicant’s wife with one Poonambhai Parmar. In this regard, learned advocate has drawn attention to complaint lodged before the Naranpura Police Station, Ahmedabad (Annexure-B). In view of this material on record (Annexure-B), it was submitted that the trial court has seriously erred in granting maintenance to the respondent– wife. 6. On the other hand, learned advocate Ms.Renu D. Chaudhary for the respondent No.2 – wife has supported the order under challenge and it was pointed out that father of the present petitioner was an Income-tax Officer and petitioner has his own house. It was submitted that after being separated, the petitioner has never taken care of their two daughters. Learned advocate submitted that no interference is called for in the order under challenge. 7. Theory of illicit relationship is considered by the trial court and the trial court has not believed the same. It was not pointed out that how this finding of the trial court is erroneous. Further, what has happened to the complaint lodged by the petitioner before the Naranpura Police Station is not pointed out. Learned trial court, for disbelieving the theory of illicit relationship, has taken into consideration the material on record including the complaint filed by the applicant. The petitioner has not made out any case for interfering in finding of the trial court. The allegations of illicit Page 3 of 4

R/SCR.A/1955/2011 JUDGMENT relationship is not established by the applicant. 8. As to the amount of maintenance, learned trial court has considered the monthly income of the petitioner at Rs.5000/-. Assessment of applicant’s income and apportionment made by the learned trial court appears to be just and proper. Directing the petitioner to pay Rs.1000/- per month to the respondent– wife cannot be said to be bad or excessive so as to call for any interference by this Court. 9. In view of above discussion, there is no substance in the present petition and therefore, the same requires to be dismissed and accordingly, it is dismissed. Rule is discharged. (R.D.KOTHARI, J.) vipul Page 4 of 4