JAGATSINH BAPUBHA ZALA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner - original opponent has prayed for an appropriate Writ, direction and order quashing and setting aside the judgment and order dated 31.05.2007 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rajkot in Criminal Revision Application No. 145 of 2006 by which the learned Revisional Court has partly allowed the said Revision Application modifying the order passed by the learned trial Court directing the petitioner to pay maintenance to his wife original applicant at the rate of Rs.7,000/- per month.

(2.) Wife of the petitioner submitted an application under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code being Criminal Misc. Application No. 1107 of 2004 before the learned 7th Additional Senior Civil Judge & J.M.F.C, Rajkot and the learned trial Court vide judgment and order dated 26.07.2006 passed an order directing the petitioner to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.4,000/- per month. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the same, the wife of the petitioner preferred Criminal Revision Application No. 145 of 2006 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rajkot and prayed for maintenance at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per month. The learned Revisional Court considering the pay slip of the petitioner and considering the salary of the petitioner of Rs.13,142/- per month and further considering the agricultural income of the petitioner at the rate of Rs.30,000/- per annum i.e. Rs.2500/- per month, held that the monthly income of the petitioner is Rs.14,200/- and considering the decision of this Court in the case of Aruna G. Devda v/s. State of Gujarat reported in 1993(1) GLH 444 partly allowed the said Revision Application and instead of Rs.4,000/- per month fixed maintenance at the rate of Rs.7,000/- per month and directed the petitioner to pay maintenance to the original applicant at the rate of Rs.7,000/- from the date of the original application. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the same, the petitioner has preferred the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) Mr.C.L.Soni, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that the Revisional Court has not properly appreciated the fact that the petitioner is also required to maintain his parents who are at present residing with the petitioner. He has also further submitted that the learned Revisional Court has not properly appreciated the fact that the quarter which was alloted to the petitioner is retained by his wife, has put lock and is staying at Rajkot; and the petitioner is required to stay at another place and has to bear the expenditure of rent of Rs.1500/- per month. The aforesaid aspects are not considered by the learned Revisional Court, therefore, it is requested to allow the present petition.