Heard Mr.HH Joshi, learned advocate for the petitioner, Ms.JC Bhatt, learned advocate for respondents No.1 and 2 and Mr.KP Raval, learned APP for respondent No.3.
The petitioner, by preferring this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, challenged judgment and order dated 30.6.2010 rendered by learned Judge, Family Court No.4, Ahmedabad in Criminal Misc.Application No.1450 of 2007, whereby the Family Court awarded Rs.1500/- p.m. by way of maintenance to respondent No.1 - wife and Rs.900/- p.m. to respondent No.2 - minor son of the petitioner and respondent No.1.
Mr.Joshi, learned advocate for the petitioner took me through the impugned judgment and order rendered by the Family Court and submitted that in absence of any specific evidence regarding the income of the petitioner (original opponent), the concerned Family Court erred in determining the monthly maintenance amount of respondent Nos.1 and 2. He read over paragraphs 11 and 12 in the impugned judgment and order in support of such submission. He further submitted that respondent No.1 - wife is serving in Civil Hospital and she is earning Rs.5000/- p.m. Ms.Bhatt, learned advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Mr.Raval, learned APP for respondent No.3 - State opposed the admission of this matter and submitted that no interference is warranted in the impugned judgment and order rendered by the Family Court.
Examining the impugned judgment and order rendered by the Family Court, together with the papers annexed with this petition, and more particularly, considering paragraph 11 in the impugned judgment and order, it transpires that as per the evidence of the wife, the petitioner - husband is educated man, having agricultural land, including tractor and cattles, and according to her evidence, the income of the petitioner - husband was about Rs.1 lac. However, the petitioner - husband (original opponent), in his evidence, merely denied such allegation. Appreciating the evidence on record, the Family Court, therefore, rightly observed that except mere denial of the evidence regarding his income adduced by the respondent - wife, no specific evidence is adduced by the petitioner - husband about his income. There is no dispute that both the parents and sister are dependent upon the income of the petitioner, but the fact remains that after overall appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record, the trial Court ascertained the maintenance amount for wife at Rs.1500/- p.m. and for minor son, aged about 8 years, at Rs.900/- p.m. It is true that before the Family Court, during the cross-examination of respondent No.1 - wife, a suggestion was put that the respondent - wife was serving in Civil Hospital and she was drawing Rs.5000/- p.m. as salary, but the respondent No.1 - wife outright denied such suggestion. The trial Court, therefore, rightly appreciated the evidence on record and observed that except mere suggestion, placed on behalf of the petitioner - husband, during the deposition of respondent - wife, the petitioner - husband could have brought some documentary evidence from the concerned hospital, if at all he was firm about his defence.
In the above view of the matter, this Court does not find any genuine reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and order rendered by the trial Court by exercising the powers vested in this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Resultantly, the application is not required to be admitted and considered.
For the foregoing reasons, the application stands dismissed. However, at this stage, Ms.Bhatt, learned advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2 submitted that the maintenance amount awarded by the trial Court is in arrears, to which Mr.Joshi, learned advocate for the petitioner - husband submitted that the husband has deposited certain amount before this Court and said amount came to be withdrawn by the respondent No.1 - wife. In the above view of the matter, if at all any amount is in arrears, such amount to be deposited by the petitioner - husband before the concerned Family Court within two months hereof.
(J.C.UPADHYAYA, J.) (binoy) Top