[1.0] Present application under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “CrPC”) has been preferred by the applicant herein – original opponent – husband to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 20.01.2010 passed by the learned Family Court, Surat in Maintenance Application No.649 of 2008 by which the learned Family Court has directed the applicant to pay Rs.1500/ per month to respondent No.2 – original applicant No.1 wife and Rs.800/ per month to respondent No.3 herein – original applicant No.2 minor towards their maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC. [2.0] Shri Utpal Panchal, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant has vehemently submitted that in absence of any documentary evidence on record with respect to income of the applicant, learned Family Court has materially erred in awarding Rs.2300/ per month to the original applicants towards their maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC. It is submitted that the learned Family Court has not properly appreciated the fact that the applicant is residing in the joint family and cultivating the lands jointly and therefore, it is requested to admit/allow the present Criminal Revision Application.
[3.0] Present Criminal Revision Application is opposed by Shri Panthil Majmudar, learned advocate appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.2 and 3. It is submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, more particularly, when the applicant did not produce any document to show his income and considering the fact that the applicant was doing the agricultural work and looking to the price rise, inflation etc., no illegality has been committed by the learned Family Court in awarding maintenance of Rs.2300/ per month only.
Making above submissions, it is requested to dismiss the present Revision Application.
[4.0] Heard learned advocates appearing on behalf of respective parties at length. At the outset it is required to be noted that as such the applicant husband has not produced any evidence to show his income.
Applicant husband is supposed to be in the personal knowledge of his income which he has not disclosed. Considering the fact that the applicant is doing the agricultural work and having a large area of land and looking to the price rise, inflation and in these hard days, it cannot be said that the learned Family Court has committed any error and/or illegality in awarding Rs.1500/ per month to the original applicant No.1 wife and Rs.800/ per month only to original applicant No.2 minor for the maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that awarding in all Rs.2300/ to the original applicants towards their maintenance under Section 125 of CrPC is too excessive and/or exorbitant, which calls for interference of this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. No interference is, therefore, called for under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the CrPC.
[5.0] In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, there is no substance in the present Criminal Revision Application which deserves to be dismissed and is, accordingly, dismissed. Notice is discharged. Adinterim relief, if any, stands vacated forthwith.
(M.R. Shah, J.) menon