RAMESHBHAI HARMANBHAI WAGHELA Vs. KAILASBEN ATTAJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant, by way of this application, has prayed to quash and set aside the judgment and order dated 21.01.2000, passed the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) in Criminal Revision Application No. 116 of 1999, whereby the learned Sessions Judge has partly allowed the application and had directed the applicant to pay an amount of Rs.250/- to respondent-original claimant no. 1 and Rs.200/- each to respondents-original claimants nos. 2 and 3 towards maintenance for herself and her children.

(2.) The short facts of the case are that the marriage of the applicant and respondent no. 1 took place in the year 1993. During the wedlock, they had two children, i.e the respondents nos. 2 and 3 herein. The respondent no. 2 along with her children, without being any reason, left the house of the applicant in the year 1996 and went to stay with her parents house. After some time, the applicant gave a notice dated 12.07.1998, stating that respondent no.1 had left the house of her without any reason and that in spite of the efforts from the family member, she had not turned up.

(3.) Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. The main grievance of the applicant is that the learned lower appellate Court had erred in considering the income of the applicant. On perusal of the record, it appears that the applicant was serving as a driver and was earning Rs.1,500/- per month. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order passed by the lower appellate Court is just and proper and no interference is required by this Court. I am in complete agreement with the reasonings given by the lower appellate the Court and hence, find no reasons to interfere with the same.