Heard Mr.D.V.Shah, learned advocate for the petitioner, Mr.Samir Khan, learned advocate for M/s.S.G.Associates for the respondent no.1-wife and Mr.K.P.Raval, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent no.2-State.
Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of both the sides and so also considering the judgment and order passed in Criminal Misc. Application No.1 of 2008 under Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the Trial Court and in turn the judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Court in Criminal Revision application No.44 of 2010, there is no doubt that son viz. Darpan for whom the amount of maintenance came to be fixed by the Trial Court attained the majority on 11.10.2010. Therefore, the question regarding the quantum of maintenance fixed by the Trial Court for Darpan carried its relevance from 12.06.2008 to 11.10.2010 since after 11.10.2010, Darpan admittedly attained majority. There is also no dispute that both the spouse i.e. petitioner-husband and the respondent no.1-wife are serving as Teachers and they are drawing their regular salaries. The Trial Court in the impugned order fixed the ratio regarding the maintenance amount of Darpan at 3:2 and the revisional Court in turn confirmed the said finding of the Trial Court. There is no dispute that the Trial Court appreciating, evaluating and examining the oral and documentary evidence adduced before it, came to the conclusion that the petitioner-husband was required to pay Rs.6000/-per month by way of maintenance to his son Darpan. Perusing the judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Court in turn, it is clear that learned Sessions Court re-examined, re-appreciated and re-evaluated the entire evidence recorded by the Trial Court and concurred with the findings of the Trial Court.
Under such circumstances, there is concurrent finding of fact by the two subordinate Courts. As stated above, the question of paying maintenance was relevant only from 12.06.2008 onwards up to 11.10.2010.
In the above view of the matter, no case is made out by the petitioner to show that the orders passed by both the subordinate Courts were without any jurisdiction or that the descretion exercised by the subordinate Courts while fixing an amount of maintenance was arbitrary exercise of discretionary powers or that the orders are so perverse that any interference of this Court under Articles 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India is warranted.
Seen in the above context, this Court does not find any merit in this application, it is not required to be admitted and considered as it deserves dismissal.
For the foregoing reasons, the application stands dismissed. As agreed by both the learned counsel for the parties, four weeks time is granted to wipe out the arrears of maintenance.
(J.C.UPADHYAYA,J.) Girish Top