NIPULBHAI MANSUKHBHAI PITRODA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision application is filed by the applicant - husband challenging the order passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Jamnagar, dtd. 2/11/2021 passed in Criminal Misc. Application No.140 of 2017 whereby maintenance of Rs.2,700.00 which was granted to the respondent - wife came to be enhanced to Rs.10,000.00 in an application preferred under Sec. 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 by the family Court.

(2.) Mr. Vishal P. Thakker, learned advocate for the applicant submitted that the applicant - husband is not owning a factory as held by the family Court Judge and on the contrary, he is working as a labourer in the fabrication factory. He has further submitted that he earns Rs.200.00 to 250/- per day by doing labour work and therefore, the order passed by the learned Judge enhancing the maintenance amount of Rs.2,700.00 to Rs.10,000.00 is on a higher side. He has further submitted that the applicant - husband is also having a liability of mother, second wife and daughter also and therefore, from the impugned order it is clear that he is asked to pay more than the amount which he earns per month with the liability of the aforesaid three persons. He has further submitted that the husband is also willing to go to reside with the wife instead of paying maintenance. Drawing attention of the Court to page 58, he has submitted that his brother - Rajeshbhai Mansukhbhai Pitroda owns a firm - Shree Balvi Mechanical Works at GIDC, Chitra, Bhavnagar and therefore, finding recorded by the learned Judge based on deposition of Development Executive of 'Justdial' that he owns factory called Balvi Mechanical Works is not correct. Drawing attention of the Court to page 62 exhibit-55, he has submitted that Shree Balvi Mechanical Works is owned by his brother - Rajeshbhai Mansukhbhai Pitroda and he has nothing to do with the same. He has further submitted that though they are four brothers, all reside separately and earn their livelihoods. He has further submitted that he would like to produce Income-tax returns and therefore, matter be adjourned so as to enable him to produce the same. However, on a query whether Income-tax returns is a part of document produced and proved before the trial Court or not, he is unaware of it. At any rate, on that ground, hearing of this application cannot be deferred.

(3.) Having heard Mr. Thakker, learned advocate for the applicant as also perusing the impugned order passed by the family Court it is clear that the applicant has not come out with clean hands and has not produced relevant documents or any evidence, which is exclusively within his knowledge about his earning.