REKHABEN YOGENDRAKUMAR MANIAR Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned advocate appearing for the petitioner. Other side, though served, is not present. It is submitted by learned advocate Mr. Mukesh A Patel appearing for the petitioner that on earlier occasion the respondent No.2 Husband Yogendra Kumar Maniar, when appeared, had expressed his wish to place written submissions on the record of the Court and he does not want to engage any advocate. A written reply prepared by the respondent No.2 husband was to be tendered with the registry and copy of which was also to be supplied to the office of Public Prosecutor. I am told that a copy in the office of Public Prosecutor was tendered as State of Gujarat is also a party. Mr. I.M.Pandya, learned APP confirms that the copy of the contentions raised by the respondent No.1 was submitted in the office of Public Prosecutor and the office is having copy of the same. Whether the original was ever tendered to the registry or not, is not a question, because the same is not available on record of this file. Learned APP Mr. Pandya, while assisting the Court, has, tendered written reply received by the office of Public Prosecutor, for perusal and the contentions have been considered by this Court today.

(2.) Learned advocate Mr. Mukesh A. Patel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that the learned Sessions Judge while reducing the amount of maintenance, exercising jurisdiction vested with the learned Sessions Judge, has committed a grave error of law as well as of fact. I have been taken through the relevant para 12 of the maintenance application filed by present petitioners, wherein, it is specifically contended that considering the status of the applicants and the income of respondent No.2 husband/father, they are entitled to maintenance of Rs.4000.00 per month for each applicant, i.e. Rs.8000/per month. But, as the Court would not confer jurisdiction, award of an amount anything more than Rs.5000.00 per month because of the limitation prescribed by the scheme prevailing at the relevant point of time, the claimant had voluntarily restricted the claim of maintenance to Rs.5000.00 per month for each applicant. But, here the matter was pending before the learned Magistrate. Section 125 CR.P.C. came to be amended w.e.f. 24.9.2001. The learned Magistrate granted maintenance of Rs.2500.00 to the applicant No.1 wife Rekhaben. As the applicant No.2 Son has crossed the age of 18 years and certain arrangement was worked out for further study of on Mahesh, no maintenance to son Mahesh was granted.

(3.) The petitioner wife was rightly granted maintenance of Rs.2500.00 in light of the other responsibilities and one fact that a young daughter is being maintained by respondent No.2 husband.