1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Gujarat
  4. /
  5. 2010
  6. /
  7. January

Udaykumar vs Kapilaben

High Court Of Gujarat|29 October, 2010


Petitioners are the original respondents in Criminal Application No.1/09 filed by respondent No.1 herein. Respondent No.1 is the wife of uncle of petitioner No.1. Petitioner No.2 is the wife of petitioner No.1. Their uncle expired on 15.12.04. Respondent No.1 has filed the above case against the petitioners before the learned JMFC, Valia which is pending. The proceedings are instituted under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. In the said proceedings, by an order dated 5.9.09, petitioners are directed to pay interim maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month to respondent No.1 from the date of the order. The petitioners challenged the said order before the Sessions Court by filing Criminal Appeal No.48 of 2009. The said appeal came to be dismissed by order dated 27.8.2010. Hence this petition.
Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are not legally responsible to maintain respondent No.1. They do not fall within the definition of domestic relation with the said respondent. The proceedings themselves are not maintainable. The learned Magistrate as well as the Sessions Court committed grave error in granting interim maintenance to the complainant.
It is however not in dispute that the orders are passed at the interim stage. The main proceedings are still pending. It is also not in dispute that the uncle of the petitioners, i.e. husband of the complainant left behind sizable properties with respect to which he made a 'will' before his death and distributed the same amongst the petitioners and the child of the petitioners. It is also stated in the 'will' that from some of the properties, the petitioners shall maintain his wife. Significantly, he had 51% share in a factory preparing cooling towers for air conditioning plants. Considering all these aspects of the matter, I do not find that there is any need to interfere with the interim directions particularly when it is not the case of the petitioners that a sum of Rs.5,000/- ordered to be paid is beyond their reach.
However, the learned Magistrate is requested to dispose of the pending proceedings expeditiously without being influenced by this order. All contentions of the petitioners are kept open. Disposed of accordingly.
(Akil Kureshi, J.) (vjn) Top
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.

Udaykumar vs Kapilaben


High Court Of Gujarat

29 October, 2010