IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION No. 114 of 2004 For Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE PARESH UPADHYAY =========================================================
========================================================= PATEL BABUBHAI SHANKERBHAI Versus STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANOTHER ========================================================= Appearance :
MR NK MAJMUDAR for the Applicant MR NEERAJ SONI ADDL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for Respondent MR MAHENDRA K PATEL for Respondent:2 MR PINAKIN B RAVAL for Respondent:2 ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE PARESH UPADHYAY Date : 12/10/2012 CAV JUDGMENT
1. By this Criminal Revision Application, challenge is made to the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.3, Patan in Criminal Revision Application No.10 of 2003 dated 23.01.2004. By the said order, the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Patan, dated 28.01.2003 in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.126 of 2000 was set aside. The applicant is the husband and contesting opponent No.2 is the wife. The wife was deserted by the husband and she filed proceedings, being Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.126 of 2000, under the provisions of Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for maintenance from the husband.
2. The original application filed by the wife, against the husband who is a teacher, was for Rs.500 per month, since that was the ceiling under the law. During pendency of the said proceedings, the said ceiling of Rs.500/- came to be deleted w.e.f. 24.9.2001 and considering the said amendment, it was prayed on behalf of wife that her claim be permitted to be amended. The said application came to be dismissed by the order dated 22.01.2003 by Magistrate mainly on the ground that hearing was already done of the main matter and the husband is heard only to the extent that why Rs.500/- be not granted as maintenance and under these circumstances he would be prejudiced if this amendment is granted. The rejection by magistrate of said amendment application is not subject matter in this application. However even the unamended application, which was for Rs.500/-, came to be dismissed within a week, on 28.01.2003.
3. The said order dated 28.01.2003 was challenged by wife before learned Sessions Judge, Patan in Criminal Revision Application No. 10 of 2003. After recording reasons in detail, learned Sessions Judge, Patan, came to the conclusion that wife was entitled to maintenance and, therefore, her revision application came to be allowed. Be it noted that what was under challenge before learned Sessions Judge was the order dated 28.01.2003 of the Magistrate and not the order dated 22.01.2003 whereby the amendment was rejected and thus even after succeeding before the learned Sessions Court, the wife is held to be entitled for Rs.500/- only as maintenance. It is this order which is under challenge in this revision application.
4. Having gone through the record and having heard learned counsel for the respective parties, I find no error which warrants interference by this Court. This Court finds that even the rejection of amendment prayed for on behalf of the wife dated 22.01.2003 requires a re-look, however, it is for the wife to take appropriate proceedings in that regard. So far the challenge to the maintenance, to the extent of Rs.500/- per month, awarded against the husband as ordered by the Court below is concerned, I find no reason to interfere. This revision application does not have any force. Same is required to be dismissed. The same is accordingly dismissed. Rule is discharged.
amit (PARESH UPADHYAY, J.)