SHRIPAL RAJA RAJENDRAKUMAR SHAH Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of present application, the applicant has requested to quash and set aside the judgment and order dtd. 13/8/2021 passed by learned Family Court at Ahmedabad in Criminal Misc. Application No. 450 of 2013.

(2.) Brief facts of the present case are as under: That, the marriage of the applicant and respondent no.2 was solemnized on 24/11/2008 at Ahmedabad and out of their wedlock, one daughter namely Brahmi was born and later on matrimonial disputes were started between the applicant and the respondent no.2 and therefore, the respondent no.2 had left her marital home with the respondent no.3 and started residing at her parental home. Thereafter, applicant preferred an application being CRMA No. 356 of 2022 for getting custody of his daughter from the respondent no.2 as well as the respondent no.2 has filed application being Criminal Misc. Application No. 450 of 2013 for getting maintenance. Thereafter, the applicant had preferred HMP Suit No. 1541 of 2012 for divorce as well as application under Sec. 6(4) of the Hindu Guardians and Wards Act for getting custody of their daughter before the learned Family Court, which came to be withdrawn. Thereafter, applicant was constrained to prefer an application under Sec. 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act before the learned Family Court, Nashik for conjugal rights being HMP No. 82 of 2014 as well as applicant preferred Hindu Marriage Petition No. 196 of 2016 before the learned Family Court, Nashik and thereafter, various litigation were initiated for the custody of of the child and thereafter, the respondent no.2 has filed Criminal Misc. Application No. 450 of 2013 for maintenance and after hearing both the parties, learned Family Court, Ahmedabad has partly allowed such application of the respondent no.2 directing the applicant to pay Rs.10,000.00 per month to the respondent no.2 and Rs.5,000.00 per month to the respondent no.3 towards maintenance from the ate of filing the maintenance application ie., 4/3/2013. Hence, being aggrieved by the said order, applicant has approached this court by way of present revision application.

(3.) Heard learned advocates for the respective parties.