IRFAN AKBARBHAI DAVDA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE . Ms.Falguni Patel, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, waives service of rule on behalf of the respondent No.1 -State. Mr.Mehul Rathod, learned advocate, states that he also represents the respondent No.3 and waives services of rule on behalf of the respondent Nos.2 and 3. At the joint request of learned advocates for the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal today.

(2.) THE petitioner -husband has invoked revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [?Sthe Code?? for short] and has challenged the judgment and order dated 04.04.2007 rendered by the learned Sessions Judge, Banaskantha at Palanpur, in Criminal Revision Application No.67 of 2005 whereby the order of maintenance under Section 125 of the Code passed by the learned 5th Additional Senior Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Palanpur, on 21.09.2005 in Criminal Misc. Application No.149 of 2004 has been quashed and increased the maintenance awarded to the respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein.

(3.) THE respondent Nos.2 and 3 preferred an application under Section 125 of the Code in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Palanpur, and claimed maintenance from the petitioner on the grounds that the petitioner was married to the respondent No.1 and the respondent No.2 was born out of the said marriage; that the petitioner started harassing her after sometime of the marriage and pressurized to bring property from her father; that on account of cruelty, the respondent -wife was constrained to go to her parental house at the time of her pregnancy and after birth of daughter, the petitioner did not come to take her to matrimonial house and also did not make any arrangement for their maintenance; that the petitioner contracted another marriage with one Ms.Hina Kaushar and refused and neglected to maintain the respondent -wife and her daughter; that she has no source of income; that the petitioner has a garage and has agriculture land and has income of more than Rs.2 Lakhs per year. The application was resisted by the petitioner -husband by filing written statement denying the averments made in the application. After hearing, the trial Court awarded Rs.800=00 per month to the respondent -wife and Rs.500/ - per month to respondent -daughter towards the maintenance and also awarded cost of Rs.500/ -. Therefore, the respondent Nos.2 and 3 preferred Criminal Revision Application No.67 of 2005 in the Sessions Court, Banaskantha at Palanpur. The learned Sessions Judge, Banaskantha at Palanpur, by his impugned judgment and order, enhanced the amount of maintenance from Rs.800=00 to Rs.1500=00 per month for respondent -wife and from Rs.500=00 to Rs.600=00 per month for respondent -daughter as well as awarded cost of Rs.1000=00.