ANIRUDH VISHRAMBHAI JOLAPARA Vs. RITABEN ANIRUDH JOLAPARA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is filed for the purpose of challenging the legality and validity of an order dated 16.3.2017 passed in Family Suit No.98 of 2016 below application Exh.12.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that the present petitioner had filed the proceedings under section 13 of the Hindu marriage Act for the purpose of seeking divorce from the respondent. The marriage between the two took place on 16.2.1992 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies. They were living in the joint family and one daughter named Rhiea was born out of the said wedlock. On account of rift between the two and the family, originally they started living separately for some time in the rented premises and the respondent was a working woman. It is further the case of the petitioner that on account of the rift, they started living separately since 2007 and the rift has resulted into filing of a complaint under sections 498-A, 313, 504 and 114 of Penal Code wherein an order of acquittal also came to be passed. Against the said order of acquittal, Criminal Appeal No.54 of 2011 was filed by the State Government but the said appeal came to be rejected on 3.7.2013. In the meantime, HMP Case No.44 of 2014 came to be filed as stated above, Resultantly, during the pendency o the said proceedings, an application was submitted under section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act with a view to even reconcile for a period of two years. The same was kept pending but nothing positive occurred, resultantly, since the earlier HMP No.44 of 2014 was withdrawn in the hope of overall resolution, again, HMP No.28 of 2016 was filed in the Court of learned Civil Judge, Bhuj-Kachchh which later on was transferred to Family Court, Bhuj-Kachchh. During the pendency of the said proceedings, for seeking interim maintenance of Rs.20,000.00 per month from the date of application, a request was made to award by submitting an application below Exh.15. The reply was submitted at Ex.12 by contesting the said application. It is the case of the petitioner that in parallel proceedings filed under section 125 of Crimial P.C., an amount of Rs.6000.00 per month was awarded and being aggrieved by the said order, the revision application was also pending. But here, the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, vide order dated 16.9.2017 was pleased to award an amount of Rs.4,000.00 per month to be paid regularly in addition to the arrears which have been accumulated and it is this order which is made the subject of challenge by way of the present petition which is affirmed on 30.3.2018.

(3.) Pursuant to the notice having been issued on 11.6.2018, the matter has come up for consideration before this Court further wherein, to enable the parties to explore the possibility of settlement, time was granted and later on having found no resolution as it appears both the learned advocates have chosen to put up their case finally.