Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 39 (GUJ)

Jayveersinh Muljibhai Parmar v. State of Gujarat

2018-01-09

S.G.SHAH

body2018
JUDGMENT : 1. RULE. Learned APP waives service of notice of Rule for the respondent – State. 2. Heard learned advocate Ms. A.M. Patel for the petitioner, Mr. B.N. Limbachia, learned advocate for respondent No.2 and Mr. Manan Mehta, learned APP for the respondent – State being formal party. Perused the record. 3. The Petitioner herein is husband whereas respondent no.2 is his wife. 4. The petitioner has challenged the judgment and order dated 12.7.2017 in Criminal Misc. Application No.2103/2017 by Family Court, Ahmedabad whereby Family Court has awarded an amount of Rs.15,000/- to be paid by the petitioner from 14.8.2015 and, therefore, petitioner has challenged such order mainly on the ground that he was serving as a lecturer, in fact, his salary from August, 2015 till April, 2016 was only fixed salary of Rs.18,800/- which was only Rs.10,800/- in the month of May, 2016 and thereafter he was unemployed in the month of June, July and August, 2016; though he was employed thereafter in September, 2016 and getting approximately Rs.42,000/- on probation in the first year and at present he is getting almost Rs.48,000/- per month. Therefore, though at present, salary of the petitioner is Rs.48,000/-, it is contended that trial court has failed to consider the fact that such salary is only from October, 2016 and before that salary of the petitioner was around Rs.18,000/- only and, therefore, amount of maintenance of Rs.15,000/- for entire period is certainly harsh and unwarranted. 5. I have perused the evidence on record. Prima facie, it becomes clear that though petitioner is earning almost Rs.48,000/-, at present, before September, 2016, his salary was only Rs.18,800/- since he was working on contractual basis. If it is so, then, trial Court has certainly erred in not considering the different slot for awarding different amount of maintenance based upon the income of the husband because trial court has awarded an amount of Rs.15,000/- towards maintenance for the period when income of the husband was only Rs.18,800/-. 6. I have also perused the available depositions and impugned judgment whereby it becomes clear that salary of the petitioner was not Rs.50,000/- in the year 2015-16 and, therefore, to that extent, award of Rs.15,000/- towards maintenance for all the period would be unjust, improper and needs to be modified. 6. I have also perused the available depositions and impugned judgment whereby it becomes clear that salary of the petitioner was not Rs.50,000/- in the year 2015-16 and, therefore, to that extent, award of Rs.15,000/- towards maintenance for all the period would be unjust, improper and needs to be modified. Though record shows that petitioner has tried to mislead the Court and tried to delay the proceedings and, therefore, though Court has awarded Rs.10,000/- towards cost of the litigation as penalty upon the petitioner, at this stage, I do not want to enter into those reasons since I endorse the findings of the trial Court to that effect because nobody is allowed to play with the court proceeding by any means. 7. However, as already stated hereinabove, when salary of the petitioner was only Rs.18,800/- till May, 2016 and, thereafter, though petitioner has said that he was unemployed for couple of months but when he joined the services with the salary of Rs.50,000/-, it would be appropriate to modify the impugned order so as to reduce amount of maintenance for the period between date of application being 14.8.2015 till August, 2016 by reducing amount of maintenance from Rs.15,000/- to Rs.6,000/- however amount of maintenance is confirmed to Rs.15,000/- from the month of September, 2016. 8. Therefore, Revision Petition is partly allowed in above terms. Thereby, now impugned order dated 12.7.2017 by Family court, Ahmedabad in Criminal Misc. Application No.2103/2015 is hereby modified to the extent that amount of maintenance is reduced to Rs.6,000/- for the period between August, 2015 to August, 2016. However, amount of maintenance as per impugned order i.e. Rs.15,000/- is confirmed from the month of September, 2016 onwards. The order of cost is also confirmed. 9. In view of above facts and circumstances, this Revision Petition is allowed in aforesaid terms. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct Service is permitted. 10. Record and Proceedings, if called for, be sent back to the concerned Court.