1. The present Criminal Revision Application under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred by the applicant-husband to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 07/10/2010 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Surat in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 868/2008 by which the learned Family Court has directed the applicant-husband to pay Rs. 1500/- per month to respondent no. 2-wife and Rs. 1000/- each per month to respondents nos. 3 and 4-minor children towards their maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
2. Respondents nos. 2 to 4 submitted Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 868/2008 before the learned Family Court, Surat against the applicant-husband for maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure claiming maintenance at Rs. 2000/- per month to respondent no. 2-wife and Rs. 2000/- each per month to respondents nos. 3 and 4- minor children. On appreciation of evidence and considering the price rise and value of rupee and the expenditure to be borne by respondent no. 2 for maintaining herself and for maintenance of two minor children vide impugned order the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Surat partly allowed the said application awarding maintenance to respondent no. 2- wife at Rs. 1500/- per month and Rs. 1000/- each per month to respondents nos. 3 and 4-minor children. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Surat the applicant-husband has preferred the present Criminal Revision Application under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
3. Shri Abhiraj Trivedi, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant-husband has vehemently submitted that as such looking to the income of the applicant the learned Judge has materially erred in awarding Rs. 1500/- per month towards maintenance to respondent no. 2-wife and Rs. 1500/- each per month towards maintenance to respondents nos. 3 and 4-minor children. No other submission have been made.
4. Shri Utpal Panchal, learned advocate appearing on behalf of respondents nos. 2 to 4 has submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Surat is on appreciation of evidence and considering the price rise and value of rupee and the expenditure to be borne by respondents nos. 2 to 4 for their maintenance and their livelihood, which is not required to be interfered with by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.
5. Heard Shri Trivedi, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant, Ms. C.M. Shah, learned advocate appearing on behalf of respondent no. 1 and Shri Utpal Panchal, learned advocate appearing on behalf of respondents nos. 2 to 4 and considered the impugned order passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Surat awarding Rs. 1500/- per month to respondent no. 2-wife and Rs. 1000/- each per month to respondents nos. 3 and 4-minor children. It cannot be said that the learned Judge has committed any error and/or illegality in awarding the aforesaid maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Considering the price rise and the value of rupee and the expenditure to be borne by respondent no. 2 for her maintenance as well as two minor children, awarding Rs. 1500/- per month to respondent no. 2-wife and Rs. 1000/- each per month to respondents nos. 3 and 4-minor children cannot be said to be too exorbitant and/or excessive, which calls for the interference of this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.
6. At this stage, Shri Abhiraj Trivedi, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant-husband has requested to grant some reasonable time to the applicant-husband to clear the arrears of maintenance, which the applicant-husband is required to pay to respondents nos. 2 to 4 pursuant to the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court.
7. In view of the above and for the reasons stated hereinabove, the present Criminal Revision Application deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. Notice is discharged.
8. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the applicant-husband is hereby granted time up to 31/12/2012 to clear the arrears of maintenance, which is due and payable pursuant to the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court. However, it is ordered that the applicant-husband shall pay the amount of maintenance to respondents nos. 2 to 4 as per the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court every month regularly as and when due and payable.
(M.R. SHAH, J.) siji