MAHESHSINH BANESINH RATHOD Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this application, the revisionist-applicanthusband has made a prayer to quash and set aside the order dtd. 31/5/2023 below Exhibit 152 in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.133 of 2021 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Gandhinagar.

(2.) The applicant has stated in the memo that he has not challenged the maintenance amount of Rs.6,500.00 from 7/9/2016 to 31/12/2017, Rs.7,000.00 from 1/1/2020 to 31/12/2021 and Rs.8,000.00 of every month from 1/2/2022 ordered by the learned Family Court below Exhibit 152 in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.133 of 2021 and is ready and willing to pay the maintenance amount to the children.

(3.) Learned Advocate for the applicant Mr. Harshadray A. Dave for the applicant-revisionist submitted that the respondent No.2 - wife would not be entitled for the maintenance amount since she had been harassing the revisionist and the family members by making false allegations. It is further submitted that the revisionist and the family members were acquitted qua the false allegations under Ss. 307, 323, 504, 498A and 114 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and under Ss. 3 and 7 of the Prohibition of Dowry Act, 1961. It is stated that the fact of acquittal becomes germane to the issue, inspite of that, the learned Family Court has not appreciated the acquittal, which clearly proves that there was no cruelty or harassment to the wife for her to move out of the matrimonial house.