VASANTBHAI PREMJIBHAI VEKARIYA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present criminal revision application under Sec. 397 read with Sec. 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "CrPC") has been preferred by the applicant herein - husband requesting to quash and set aside the order dtd. 10/12/2021 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Anand in Criminal Misc. Application No.81 of 2019, whereby the applicant is directed to pay Rs.50,000.00 per month towards monthly maintenance to respondent No.2 from the date of application i.e. 12/3/2019.

(2.) The brief facts of the case of the applicant are as follows:

(3.) Learned Advocate Mr. Ashish M. Dagli appearing for the applicant has submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is unjust, improper and contrary to the settled principles of law, as the Court below has failed to consider and properly appreciate the oral as well as documentary evidence on record and has proceeded mainly on assumptions and presumptions. He has further submitted that the Court has overlooked the material fact that at the time of filing the application under Sec. 125 CrPC, the respondent No.2 was residing with the applicant and her expenses were being borne by him, thereby rendering the application itself not maintainable. Further, though interim maintenance was fixed at Rs.15,000.00 per month after hearing both sides, the same has been arbitrarily enhanced to Rs.50,000.00- per month in the final order without any cogent material. He has further submitted that the Court below has ignored crucial evidence regarding the applicant's income, including Income Tax returns, audit reports and the testimony of the Income Tax Officer, and has also failed to consider that the applicant's business has suffered, particularly post-COVID-19, resulting in substantial reduction in income. He has further submitted that the evidence of witness Raj Sureshchandra Tiwari (Exh.58) supporting the financial difficulties of the applicant has also been disregarded. Moreover, the respondent No.2 has admitted that the applicant has been regularly depositing amounts in the joint bank account and bearing household as well as educational expenses of their son. He has submitted that therefore the impugned order imposes an excessive and unrealistic financial burden on the applicant beyond his means and has been passed ignoring material evidence on record. He has further submitted that the proceedings have been initiated with mala fide intention to harass and pressurize the applicant. He has further submitted that due to recession in the business, applicant is unable to pay such exorbitant amount of maintenance to the respondent - wife and hence, he has requested to quash and set aside the impugned order in the interest of justice.