VARSHABEN HIMANTLAL VEJANI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Service of rule is waived by Mr. Manan Mehta, Ld. APP and Mr. Abichandani, Ld. Advocate for respondent nos. 1 and 2 respectively.

(2.) Both these petitions are arising out of the same impugned judgment and order dated 31/3/2011 rendered in consolidated judgment in Criminal Revision Application No. 23 of 2010 and Criminal Revision Application No. 34 of 2010 by the Sessions Judge, Bhavnagar and, therefore, they are heard together and being decided by this common judgment.

(3.) Before the Sessions Court, Criminal Revision Application No. 23 of 2010 was preferred by Varshaben Himatlal Vejani; whereas Criminal Revision Application No. 34 of 2010 was preferred by her husband Rameshkumar Manubhai Sanghavi, wherein both of them have challenged the judgment and order dated 4/3/2010 rendered in Misc. Criminal Application No. 496/2008 by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhavnagar, which was preferred by wife Varshaben with her two minor daughters under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure [for short 'Cr. P.C.'] for maintenance of all of them from her husband and father of minor daughters, namely Rameshbhai Sanghavi. By such order dated 4/3/2010, the Magistrate has directed to increase the amount of maintenance of minor daughters only from Rs.500/ - pm to Rs.2,500/ - pm so far as minor daughter Sonal is concerned and from Rs.500/ - pm to Rs.2,000/ - pm so far as minor daughter Anjali is concerned. Whereas the Magistrate has rejected the application for enhancement of maintenance so far as wife Varshaben is concerned. Therefore, wife has preferred revision before the Sessions Court for her maintenance and husband has preferred revision before the Sessions Court to quash and set aside such order of enhancement of maintenance. However, the Sessions Court has dismissed both the revision applications and, therefore, order of Magistrate dated 4/3/2010 is confirmed. In view of such situation, before this Court, again husband has challenged both the orders, as aforesaid, regarding enhancement of maintenance in favour of the daughters; whereas wife has challenged both the orders by which amount of maintenance is refused to be enhanced in her favour.