DINESHKUMAR LADULAL AARYA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned advocate Ms.Namrata J. Shah with learned advocate Ms.Nimisha J. Parikh for the applicant and learned APP Mr.Manan Mehta for the respondent State whereas learned advocate Mr.R.G.Dwivedi with learned advocate Ms.P.H.Hotchandani for the respondents no.2 and 3. Perused the record.

(2.) Applicant is the husband of respondent no.2 whereas respondent no.3 is their minor daughter. Applicant has challenged the judgment and order dated 27.07.2017 by Family Court, Vadodara in Criminal Misc. Application No.22 of 2015 whereby the petitioner has been directed to pay an amount of Rs.5000/- towards maintenance of wife and Rs.2000/- towards maintenance of minor daughter i.e. total Rs.7000/- from the date of application i.e. 07.01.2015.

(3.) Applicant has mainly challenged such order on the ground that in fact wife has deserted the husband and abandoned her matrimonial home and started living with her parents, and that she does not want to live in a joint family submitting that it is clearly established from her evidence. It is further submitted that Trial Court has wrongly relied upon the statement of the wife that she was subjected to physical and mental torture and placed much reliance upon the complaint filed by the wife, which is nothing but a false complaint, more particularly, when the wife has not examined any witness to prove any physical or mental torture. It is further submitted that though wife has left her matrimonial house in December 2012, application for maintenance was file only in the year 2015 with baseless and vague allegations and therefore, there is a reason to believe that there is no harassment since applicant has not initiated any proceedings, even under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act for the period of three years after leaving her matrimonial house. It is also contended that provision of Section 125 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 has not been properly considered, since, husband has successfully established that the wife has refused to live with him without any sufficient reason and applicant has made all efforts to bring back respondent no.2 - wife. It is also contended that Trial Court has erred in relying upon the statement of wife that applicant is earning Rs.30, 000/- per month without any documentary evidence to that effect, when applicant has disclosed that he was having no job and he was unemployed and that he was working as a teacher on temporary basis for some time and because of such legal proceedings, he was terminated from his job. It is also submitted that respondent no.2 is having degree of M.A.B.Ed. and having independent source of income by conducting tutions at home and that his salary was only Rs.12, 000/- per month and that too for some period only.