MUKESH BHAGUBHAI PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present application is filed for seeking following reliefs:

(2.) Brief facts as per the case of the applicant in this application are as such that in the year 1987, the applicant, the owner of a Pharma Company married to one Jankiben. Subsequently, in 1988, the applicant and Jankiben had a daughter named Fizu i.e. first informant, respondent no. 2 herein. It is further the case of the applicant in this applicant that in the year 1993, the applicant and Jankiben got divorced in view of marital discord. Till Fizu- respondent no. 2 attained majority she was under the guardianship of the present applicant whereas, physical custody of respondent no. 2 remained with Jankiben, ex-wife of the present applicant. It is further the case of the applicant in this applicant that it is required to be noted that all the expenses of Fizu till her marriage have been borne by the applicant. Respondent no. 2 got married with Maunang Patel in the year 2011. The applicant bore all expenses such as jewelry, clothing, etc. In the year 2012, from the wedlock of respondent no. 2 and Maunang, daughter Arya was born. Every year the applicant would give Rs.1,00,000.00 to respondent no. 2 for his granddaughter Arya. Though the applicant and Jankiben have been divorced for long, respondent no. 2 Fizu invited the applicant for all social occasions and events. The applicant and his daughter - Fizu, respondent no. 2 here have a healthy relation unaffected by the divorce of her parents. It is further the case of the applicant in this applicant that Arya was having her 8th birthday on 1/8/2020 and as usual the applicant along with other family members was invited. All the invitees were enjoying the party. Thereafter, the applicant went upstairs to take rest and after sometime, the applicant left for his home.

(3.) Heard learned advocate Mr. Tejas Barot for the applicant, Mr. Dhawan Jayswal, learned APP for the respondent No.1 - State and Mr. Maunish T. Pathak, learned advocate for the respondent No.2.