DARPANBHAI CHANDRESHBHAI PARMAR Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision Application is filed challenging an order passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Rajkot dtd. 2/1/2019 in Criminal Misc. Application No.52 of 2016, whereby the petitioner - husband is ordered to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.7,000.00 p.m. from the date of application i.e. 20/1/2016, to the respondent - wife. Over and above that, any other amount awarded to be paid by the petitioner - husband has been given set off from the amount determined by the impugned order. At the same time, Rs.2,500.00 is awarded towards the cost to be paid to the respondent - wife.

(2.) Heard Mr. N.L.Ramnani, learned advocate for the petitioner - husband. According to his submission, the amount of maintenance awarded at the rate of Rs.7,000.00 p.m. is on a higher-side as he earns only Rs.6,000.00 p.m. from doing computer job work. He has further submitted that while determining the amount of maintenance to be paid to the respondent - wife, the learned Judge has not determined earning of the husband. Therefore, according to his submission, no maintenance at the rate of Rs.7,000.00 p.m. should have been ordered by the learned Judge.

(3.) Having heard the learned advocate for the petitioner - husband and going through the impugned order as also the documents from paper book, it appears that the petitioner - husband has suppressed his real earning after filing his written reply to the application for maintenance, cross-examining the wife and producing his examination-in-chief, he disappeared and did not permit the wife to cross examine him to bring on record his real earning. Therefore, anything stated either in the reply or in the examination-in-chief, maybe on oath, cannot be considered as a gospel truth and it has to be eschewed from the record.