VASTABHAI NATHABHAI PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER is husband of respondent No.2. He has challenged an order dated 29th September, 2006 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Panchmahals in Criminal Revision Application No.56 of 2006.

(2.) SHORTLY stated facts are as follows: Against the petitioner, wife had filed proceedings under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance of Rs.1000/- per month. Petitioner opposed the proceedings contending mainly that the wife is residing separately since long by mutual consent. At the time of separation, petitioner had provided permanent maintenance. She is now not entitled to any further maintenance.

(3.) IN addition to above, I have also perused the contents of the application by the wife as well as deposition of the husband. He admitted that he is a retired pensioner and earns pension Rs.4,000/- per month. IN addition, he also received PF amount etc. Considering the facts and circumstances, I am of the opinion that Sessions Court committed no error in granting maintenance of Rs.1000/- to the wife. The fact that her son was in service and was therefore earning some income would not absolve liability of husband to maintain the wife. No case of interference in exercise of revisional powers is made out. Petition is therefore dismissed. Rule discharged.