TANUMATIBEN MUKESH KUMAR PARIKH Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicants herein are the original applicants, whereas Respondent No. 2 herein is the original respondent before the Family Court, Ahmedabad, in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 2427 of 2011 preferred by the present applicants claiming maintenance to the tune of Rs. 30,000/ - from the Respondent No. 2. By impugned judgment and order dated 02.08.2013, Family Court No. 4, Ahmedabad, has awarded monthly maintenance of Rs. 3,500/ - for applicant No. 1, Rs. 4,500/ - for applicant No. 2 and Rs. 3,500/ - for applicant No. 3 to be paid by the respondent No. 2. The respondent No. 2 and applicant No. 1 are husband and wife, whereas applicants No. 2 and 3 are their minor Sons.

(2.) SO far as rights and liabilities of the parties are concerned, when the respondent No. 2 being husband has not challenged the impugned judgment, practically, he has accepted his liability to pay the maintenance, and therefore, the reasons for disturbance and separation between the husband and wife are not material at present, and therefore, those minor details of ill -treatment, dissertation and disturbances are not required to be reproduced herein, except referring the materially factual details for considering the quantum of maintenance, since the Revision is filed by the wife and minor children for enhancement of quantum of maintenance only. It cannot be ignored that even in affidavit -in -reply filed by the respondent No. 2, he has though tried to explain that impugned order is proper and not required to be interfered by this Court, it is his statement on oath in paragraph No. 16 of affidavit -in -reply that this Honourable High Court as well as Honourable Apex Court have considered the proper amount of maintenance under Section 125 of the Code as 1/3 amount of the salary of the husband, and therefore, it is his specific statement in the affidavit that the order of the learned Judge, Family Court, Ahmedabad, is just, proper and legal, and that there is no jurisdictional error in passing the order, and thereby, he is requesting and submitting that Revisional powers of the Honourable High Court is limited.

(3.) THE fact remains that there was disturbance between the parties and when the respondent does not challenge the order of maintenance and on the contrary confirmed his liability, such defences are not material except to consider the fact about quantum or amount of maintenance. It is submitted that at least, the Court may consider that the wife is having an independent house of her own which is otherwise provided by in -laws.