VIJAYKUMAR SANTLAL VADHVA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner husband has prayed for an appropriate order to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 2.7.2004 passed by the learned JMFC, Kalol passed in Criminal Misc. Application No.117 of 2002 as well as the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 4th Fast Track Court, Panchmahals at Godhra dated 28.2.2005 passed in Criminal Revision Application No.84 of 2004.

(2.) Shri Virendra Baheti, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner has vehemently submitted that both the Courts below have committed an error in awarding the maintenance to the respondent Nos.2 and 3 inasmuch as there was already a settlement between the parties dated 20.1.2007 in Criminal Misc. Application No. 55 of 2005 filed by the petitioner for the recovery of the amount of maintenance, in view of the settlement, the wife has forgone her demand as claimed in Criminal Misc. Application No. 55 of 2005 and therefore, it is requested to allow present petition.

(3.) Shri Hriday Buch, learned advocate appearing for the respondent Nos.2 and 3 while relying upon the affidavit in reply filed on behalf of the respondent Nos.2 and 3 has submitted that as the petitioner was required to pay approximately an amount of Rs.1,77,000/- towards the arrears of maintenance and was in jail, the petitioner made a show to enter into settlement and agreed to take back the respondent Nos.2 and 3, however, while returning, the respondent Nos.2 and 3 were left alone by the petitioner at Savalia bus stand by asking the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to wait for the cold drink and the petitioner went to get cold drink and subsequently he never returned. Thus, it is submitted that the so-called settlement and the proposal of the petitioner to take back the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 was only an eye-wash and the said settlement was never acted upon. It is also further submitted by him that even the order passed by the learned JMFC dated 2.7.2004 passed in Criminal Misc. Application No. 117 of 2002 by which the learned JMFC passed an order awarding the maintenance to the respondent Nos.2 and 3 at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per month for wife and Rs.500/-per month for the child was never challenged by the petitioner before the learned Revisional Court and thereafter, in Revision Application No. 84 of 2004 filed by the respondent Nos.2 and 3, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, 4th Fast Track Court, Panchmahals at Godhra passed an order enhancing the amount of maintenance from Rs.1,000/- per month to Rs.3,000/- per month and from Rs.500/- per month to Rs.2,000/- per month to the wife and child respectively. It is submitted that even the said order was passed by the learned Revisional Court as far back as in the month of February 2005, still the petitioner did not challenge the same and both the aforesaid orders are challenged by the petitioner in the present proceedings in the year 2007. Under the circumstances, it is requested to dismiss the present petition.