1. Learned advocate for the petitioner moves draft amendment. The same is allowed. To be carried out during the course of the day.
2. Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that there is an error apparent in the order dated 14.05.2012. In this regard, he invited attention of the Court to opening paragraph of order dated 14.05.2012, which paragraph reads as under :
" Notice returnable on 17.05.2012.
Learned APP Mr. Patel waives service of rule on behalf of respondent No.1 - State and Party-in-person Mr. Abhishek Ashwini Goyal, who is present personally before this Court today, waives service of rule on behalf of respondent Nos.2 to 6."
3. Learned advocate submitted that the relevant part of paragraph 6 reads as under :
"6. ...In view of that, as prayed for by respondent no.2, he is granted time till 17.5.2012 to reply to the contents of this application but by way of interim orders, order dated 25.4.2012 is stayed and further proceedings of Criminal Case No.1110 of 2008 is also stayed and Registry is directed not to return the passport to respondent no.2 though it is permitted by the Division Bench of this Court while passing the order in a contempt petition, in the changed circumstances. ..."
4. Earlier, this Court has sic (had) directed respondent No.2 to pay the interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.25,000/- per month and also to pay sum of Rs.15,000/- per month towards rental charges. The said amount is not paid fully by respondent No.2 and therefore, registry is directed not to return the passport of respondent No.2. The matter was adjourned to 17.05.2012.
5. Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the first word 'notice' ought to have been 'rule'.
6. Learned advocate Mr.G.M.Joshi, is instructed by the Principal District Judge, District Court, Ahmedabad (Rural) at Ahmedabad to appear on behalf of respondent No.7. The learned advocate is present before the Court.
7. In the considered opinion of this Court, what is alleged against respondent No.7 is his 'personal conduct' and not any institutional act and therefore, respondent No.7 is required to cause appearance in his personal capacity.
8. In response to the process issued on 14.05.2012, respondent No.5 - Sweta Ashwini Goyal and respondent No.6 - Swati Ashwini Goyal are present along with Mr. Abhishek Ashwini Goyal - respondent No.2, who was present on earlier date, before this Court today. Ms. Sweta - respondent No.5 submitted that she may be permitted to represent respondent Nos.3 and 4, who are the parents of respondent Nos.2, 5 and 6.
8.2 At one stage, respondent No.6 submitted that they should be provided ' equal level legal aid'. She also submitted that it is not possible for the respondents to match the petitioner in the matter of engaging counsels. It is also submitted by respondent No.6 that the petitioner did not stay even for one hour with her and still, number of allegations are made against her.
8.3 All these submissions are found to be not relevant for the purpose of considering the controversy involved in the matter. So far as providing of ' equal level legal aid', is concerned, it is an impossible thing, because, it is a matter of one's own conception. What is the level of the counsel engaged by the petitioner and what is the level of the counsel provided by the legal aid can never be decided up to the satisfaction of respondents.
9. Respondent No.6 made her submission and also made submissions on behalf of respondent Nos.2 to 5. Respondent No.6 prays for one month time to file reply to the petition. The request made is suggestive of the unreasonable approach of the respondents. The Court restrains itself from commenting any further, at this stage. What is important for the purpose of considering the controversy involved in the matter, and for passing interim order/s, is that respondent No.2 has not paid full amount towards maintenance or towards rental charges, which is ordered by this Court vide judgment and order dated 22.10.2010. Despite payment of some amount, an amount of Rs.7,73,871/- remains to be paid.
9.2 This Court is, prima facie, of the opinion that respondent Nos.2 to 6 are deliberately avoiding any amicable solution to the problem and are bent upon to prolong the litigation and deprive the petitioner of her livelihood/maintenance amount awarded by this Court vide order dated 22.10.2010. Incidentally, this order is confirmed by the Hon'ble the Apex Court.
10. Therefore, this Court deems it proper to pass the following order :
(i) RULE.
Ad-interim relief in terms of paragraph 9(D) and 9(D)(i).
(ii) So far as relief prayed in terms of paragraph 9(D)(ii) is concerned, the same will be considered after respondent Nos.2 to 6 file their reply.
(iii) So far as averments about the conduct of respondent No.7 in the Court is concerned, the same will be considered after respondent No.7 files his appearance in his personal capacity.
(iv) Ad-interim relief granted by this Court on 14.05.2012 shall also to continue till the final disposal of the matter.
Sd/-
(Ravi R. Tripathi, J.) #MH Dave Top