NARANJI RAJAJI DHOBI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The original opponent of Criminal Misc.Application No. 414 of 2007, husband of the original applicant has filed this Revision Application against the order dated 20.9.2011 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Ahmadabad, whereby the learned Judge partly allowed the application of the opponent No. 2, wife and awarded maintenance of Rs. 1,500 per month in favour of the opponent No. 2, wife.Heard Mr. N.L. Ramnani, learned Advocate for the applicant - original opponent, Mr. K.L. Pandya, learned APP for opponent - State and Mr. Anil H. Soni, learned Advocate for the opponent No. 2 - original applicant.

(2.) The applicant submits that after service of the notice of the Court, the applicant appeared in the proceedings and filed reply denying all the allegations levelled by the applicant's wife. It is submitted that as per the case of the applicant, the opponent - wife was not ready and willing to stay with the present applicant as he belongs to poor family and also for the reason that the opponent - wife has love affair with one another boy, who is serving in barber shop near the shop of the opponent - wife. The applicant, his family members and other respected members of the society tried to settle the dispute and the applicant is ready and willing to keep the opponent - wife with him, but the wife is not interested in joining life and society of the present applicant and with a view to pressurize the applicant, she has filed maintenance proceedings. The applicant has examined witness in support of his contentions. The applicant and other respected persons of their caste have tried to bring amicable solution between the parties, but the said efforts have failed as the opponent wife was not interested in staying with the present applicant. It is further submitted that the said witnesses have not been cross-examined by the opponent-wife.

(3.) Mr. Ramnani, learned Advocate for the applicant has read the contents of the maintenance application of the opponent No. 2 wife and contended that looking to the allegations made against the present applicant the same are totally vague, irrelevant and baseless. He has read the observations made by the learned Judge in the order and contended that looking to the evidence produced on record, it does not appear that present applicant is earning Rs. 15,000. Looking to the deposition of the opponent No. 2 - wife, the allegations made against the present applicant as well as family members of the applicant are vague. From cross-examination it appears that opponent No. 2 - wife was asked to come to house of the applicant but she was not ready to come to in-laws house. He has also read the oral evidence of one independent witness, namely, Vashantkumar Dhobi Ex.22 who has tried to settle the dispute between the parties. Even before him opponent No. 2 - wife was not ready and did not agree to come with the present applicant. He has further contended that Family Court has not considered the oral evidence of the independent witness and awarded maintenance amount. This independent witness is not cross-examined by the opponent No. 2. When the sufficient cause is shown on record yet learned Judge has considered that present applicant has committed cruelty to opponent No. 2 - wife. That the order passed by the learned Judge is perverse. Lastly he has contended that the order passed by the learned Judge is required to be quashed and set aside.