PATEL INDUBEN MAHESHBHAI Vs. PATEL MAHESHBHAI MANILAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Mr. Adeshra learned Advocate waives service of Rule on behalf of respondent. By consent, Rule is fixed forthwith. Heard Mr. Patel, learned Advocate for the petitioner-wife and Mr. Adeshra, learned Advocate for the respondent wife-husband. Even earlier, considering the request made before me for settlement, the matter was adjourned for hearing today. However, Counsel appearing in the matter before me has informed that parties are present in the Court and there is no possibility of any settlement between them.

(2.) The petitioner has challenged the order passed by the learned Civil Judge (SD) Patan dated 12th October, 2000 below Application Exh. 4 in a petition filed by the applicant under Secs. 24 and 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act. It is the case of the petitioner-wife that in an application for maintenance filed before the Criminal Court under Sec. 125 of the CrPC the learned Magistrate has awarded maintenance to the extent of Rs. 300/- p.m. By filing this application for enhancement of interim maintenance, it is the case of the petitioner-wife that respondent husband is serving with Tata Telecom at Gandhinagar and earned Rs. 7,573/- p.m. and she has also produced salary slip to prove the income of the husband. It is also an admitted fact that the respondent husband is handicapped person and the proceedings for maintenance initiated at the end of the petitioner wife under Sec. 125 of the CrPC, wherein, the learned Magistrate has granted maintenance to the extent of Rs. 300/- p.m.

(3.) It is the case the respondent-husband that he has liability to maintain his son, who is with the husband and he has also liability to maintain his parents and further that applicant wife is also getting Rs. 1,500/- by way of doing some tailoring work. However, no document is produced by the respondent to show that the applicant wife is getting any amount by way of tailoring work.