PENDIYALA SURESHKUMAR RAMARAO Vs. SOMPALLY ARUNABINDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Ld. Counsel Mr. KJ Macwan appears and waives service of Rule for respondent No.1 wife and ld. APP Mr. KT Dave appears and waives service of Rule for respondent No.2 State of Gujarat. With the consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing today.

(2.) It is submitted by ld. counsel Mr. Medipally for the petitioner husband that the impugned order of maintenance dated 17.11.2003 passed by ld. JMFC, Nadiad in Cri. Misc. Application No. 38/2002 (Exh.27) as the said order is passed in absentia and though the petitioner is a person dependent on his father and having no sufficient means, he has been fastened with the liability to pay an amount of Rs.3000/ per month by way of maintenance to respondent no.1 wife. Over and above, the petitioner is also asked to pay Rs.400/ by way of costs. That the ld. JMFC has committed gross error in determining the amount of maintenance. It is submitted that though there was no cogent documentary evidence as to the income of the present petitioner, the amount of maintenance has been granted to respondent no.1 wife.

(3.) As against that, ld. counsel Mr. Macwan appearing for respondent no.1 wife has submitted that this Cri. Rev. Application requires to be dismissed as there is no merits in the Cri. Rev. Application. On the contrary, by remaining absent, the petitioner husband had invited the order. Alternatively, it is pointed out that if the petitioner is to be given a chance to lead evidence, then it also should be clarified that respondent no.1 wife can also lead evidence as to the income and financial background of the petitioner husband and he should be asked to pay some amount by way of interim maintenance. Otherwise, his intention to protract the proceedings shall get encouragement.