KIRITBHAI TRIBHOVANDAS TAPODHAN Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present Criminal Revision Application under Section 397 read with Section 407 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred by the applicant-husband to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 08/06/2012 passed by the learned Additional Family Court, Vadodara in Criminal Miscellaneous (Maintenance) Application No. 1460/2010 by which the learned family Court has directed the applicant- husband to pay a sum of Rs. 3000/- only to respondent no. 2- original applicant-wife towards her maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(2.) RESPONDENT no. 2-original applicant-wife submitted an application against the applicant-husband initially in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Vadodara claiming maintenance at Rs. 8,000/- per month, which came to be transferred to the learned family Court, Vadodara, which came to be numbered as Criminal Miscellaneous (Maintenance) Application No. 1460/2010. It was the case on behalf of respondent no. 2-original applicant-wife that after the marriage span of six months, she was being harassed and given mental torture by the applicant-husband and her in-laws and, therefore, it was the case on behalf of respondent no. 2-original applicant that due to the physical and mental cruelty by the applicant-husband and his family members she was compelled to leave her husband's house and is compelled to stay with her parents. It was the case on behalf of respondent no. 2-original applicant that the applicant-husband is a brahmin/priest/pujari and by doing 'yajman vruti' he is earning Rs. 10,000/- per month and by doing side business he is earning about Rs. 5,000/- per month by way of commission. It was also the case on behalf of respondent no. 2-original applicant that the father of the applicant-husband was serving in IPCL, who has expired and his family has received about Rs. 30 lakhs from IPCL and presently the mother of the applicant is getting Rs. 5,000/- per month by way of family pension. It is submitted by respondent no. 2-original applicant that the applicant-husband is not having any liability to maintain anybody else except respondent no. 2-original applicant and, therefore, it was requested to award maintenance at Rs. 8000/- per month.

(3.) THE present Criminal Revision Application is opposed by Shri Bhatt, learned advocate appearing on behalf of respondent no. 2-original applicant-wife. It is submitted that as such the applicant-husband did not produce any evidence to show his actual income. Under the circumstances, considering the fact that the applicant is a pujari/priest and is doing 'yajman vruti' and is performing puja on various occasions, social as well as religious, no illegality has been committed by the learned Judge considering the income of the applicant-husband at Rs. 7000/- to Rs. 8000/- per month and consequently has not committed any error and/or illegality in awarding Rs. 3000/- per month to respondent no. 2-original applicant-wife towards her maintenance. It is submitted that in these hard days, Rs. 3000/- per month cannot be said to be an exorbitant amount. Under the circumstances, it is requested to dismiss the present Criminal Revision Application with cost.