Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1818 (GUJ)

Deepakkumar Amrutlal Buvariya v. State Of Gujarat

2022-12-20

VAIBHAVI D.NANAVATI

body2022
ORDER : 1. By way of present petition, the petitioner herein is aggrieved by the order dated 27.10.2017 passed by the 4th Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamnagar below Exh.64 in Criminal Misc. Application No.719 of 2016 and the order dated 19.07.2018 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Jamnagar below Exh.15 in Criminal Appeal No.131 of 2017. 2. The brief facts required for adjudication of the present dispute as stated by the petitioner herein reads thus :- 2.1 It is the case of the petitioner that the marriage of the petitioner and respondent No.2 was solemnized on 4.12.1994 at Jamjodhpur, District:Jamnagar. After the marriage, the respondent No.2 started living with the petitioner at Gondal. It is stated that since beginning, the respondent No.2 never wanted to reside at Gondal and on trivial issues, the respondent No.2 entered into quarrel with the petitioner and the respondent No.2 wanted to shift to Junagadh. 2.2 It is the case of the petitioner that in the year 1995, the petitioner with a view to save the marriage with the respondent No.2 shifted from Gondal to Junagadh. The petitioner had started his life at Junagadh. The petitioner also suffered major setbacks financially. It is stated that the respondent No.2 is a qualified woman and she used to keep the cheque books, passbooks and other documents related to finance with her. The petitioner and the respondent No.2 have two children out of the wedlock viz. Shivam - respondent No.3 herein and Vivek - the elder son who is aged about 22 years. It is stated that the respondent No.2 on one of the occasion, without informing the petitioner or taking the petitioner into confidence, opted for abortion. The petitioner therefore cautioned the respondent No.2 not to repeat such things again and not to take major decisions without taking the petitioner into confidence. 2.3 It is stated that since the petitioner was earning minimal income from his small business, the petitioner was not in a position to give the lavish lifestyle as desired by the respondent No.2. It is stated that in the year 2013, for trivial issue i.e. not purchasing a mobile phone for his son, the major son of the petitioner and the respondent No.2 had beaten the petitioner and the said aspect was also known to other co-residents of the locality. The petitioner is living separately from respondent No.2. It is stated that in the year 2013, for trivial issue i.e. not purchasing a mobile phone for his son, the major son of the petitioner and the respondent No.2 had beaten the petitioner and the said aspect was also known to other co-residents of the locality. The petitioner is living separately from respondent No.2. The petitioner is residing in a rental premise and is getting food from a local mess/eatery. The petitioner had suffered severe loss and his business was stopped and the capital which was gained by the petitioner was kept in fixed deposit and which was the only source of income to the petitioner. The aforesaid facts are known to all the family members and relatives of the petitioner. 2.4 It is further stated that the respondent No.2, on the other hand is having handsome income from taking tuition classes of students from Kindergarten to 7th Standard. The respondent No.2 has having FDRs to the tune of Rs.8,38,500/- in Kotak Mahindra Bank. The respondent No.2 is having recurring transactions of receiving and earning money in the bank account maintained by her in Central Bank of India. The respondent No.2 is earning sufficiently to take care of herself and also take care of the petitioner if such circumstances so arise. The respondent No.2 preferred an application before the learned Chief judicial Magistrate, Jamnagar invoking provisions of Sections 12, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22 and 23 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 inter alia making various claims against the petitioner including monetary relief, accommodation, compensation etc. which came to be numbered as Criminal Misc. Application No.719 of 2016. The respondent No.2 in the aforesaid application also preferred an application seeking interim maintenance from the petitioner below Exh.4. 3. By order dated 30.11.2016, the concerned Court passed order below Exh.4 directing the petitioner to pay sum of Rs.1500/- per month to the respondent No.2 and Rs.500/- per month to the respondent No.3 towards interim maintenance, and Rs.750/- per month towards monthly rent. The learned Magistrate proceeded further with hearing of the main application, wherein final order came to be passed by the learned Magistrate below Exh.64 by order dated 27.10.2017, wherein the said order passed below Exh.64 is duly produced on record at Annexure-A, page No.29 relevant paragraphs of the said order reads thus :- Page 42, para 15 "15. The learned Magistrate proceeded further with hearing of the main application, wherein final order came to be passed by the learned Magistrate below Exh.64 by order dated 27.10.2017, wherein the said order passed below Exh.64 is duly produced on record at Annexure-A, page No.29 relevant paragraphs of the said order reads thus :- Page 42, para 15 "15. Considering the application of the applicant, the oral evidence produced vide Exhibit-12 and the evidence produced in the case, the defendants have subjected the applicant of physical and mental torture and deprived the applicant No.1 and the applicant No.2 – Shivam and the other son – Vivek of feelings, love and sympathy as a husband and father and they had to face a mental agony. In such circumstances, considering the Indian culture, when a woman returns from her in-laws' house and lives at her parents' house, the mentality of the society breaks the applicant mentally and considering the distress the applicant has to face in such situation and the suffering faced by her as a result of carelessness and neglect by the defendant No.1 and depriving her from her rights as a wife, the ends of justice can be met if an order is passed directing the accused to pay Rs.35,000/- (rupees thirty five thousand only) within 15 days from passing of the order and therefore, a decision to Issue No.5 is given in partial affirmation and for the Issue No.6, a final order is passed as mentioned below." 4. Being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 27.10.2017 passed by the 4th Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamnagar below Exh.64 in Criminal Misc. Application No.719 of 2016, the petitioner herein preferred Criminal Appeal No.131 of 2017 before the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Jamnagar, wherein the order dated 27.10.2017 passed by the 4th Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamnagar below Exh.64 in Criminal Misc. Application No.719 of 2016 came to be confirmed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Jamnagar below Exh.15 in Criminal Appeal No.131 of 2017 by order dated 19.07.2018. The Criminal Appeal came to be rejected by the appellate Court. 5. Heard Mr. Pratik Jasani, the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner. 6. Mr. Pratik Jasani, the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that the Courts below have erred in granting the maintenance to the tune of Rs.7,500/- to the respondent No.2 and Rs.3,000/- towards minor son viz. The Criminal Appeal came to be rejected by the appellate Court. 5. Heard Mr. Pratik Jasani, the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner. 6. Mr. Pratik Jasani, the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that the Courts below have erred in granting the maintenance to the tune of Rs.7,500/- to the respondent No.2 and Rs.3,000/- towards minor son viz. Shivam, i.e. total amount being Rs.10,500/- and also Rs.4,000/- towards rent, which is required to be paid by the respondent No.2. Mr. Pratik Jasani, the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner also submitted that the respondent No.2 herself takes tuition and she earns to the tune of Rs.25,000/-. Mr. Pratik Jasani, the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner further submitted that the Courts below have erred in calculating the income of the petitioner herein and have also erred considering the same as well as erred in granting an amount of maintenance which is higher and which the petitioner herein is not in a position to pay, it is beyond the paying capacity of the petitioner herein. 7. This Court has considered both the orders passed by the Courts below. The learned Magistrate framed the following issues for consideration in Criminal Misc. Application No.719 of 2016 below Exh.4. The said issues reads thus :- Page 35, paragraph No.9 "9) Following issues have arisen in this matter for my decision : (1) Whether the applicant proves that she is subjected to domestic violence by torture of the respondent? (2) Whether the applicant proves that she is entitled to the Protection Order as per Section-18 as she is subjected to domestic violence by the respondent? (3) Whether the applicant proves that she is entitled for the residence facility or for the amount of rent as per Section-19? (4) Whether the applicant proves that she is entitled to the monetary relief under Section-20 of The Domestic Violence Act as she is subjected to domestic violence by the respondents? (5) Whether the applicant proves that she is entitled to the compensation under Section-22 of The Domestic Violence Act as she is subjected to domestic violence by the respondents? (6) What Order?" 8. The issue which is germane for consideration of this Court is Issues No.4. The concerned Court while deciding issue No.4, considered the following : Page No.39-41, Paragraph No.14, 14.1 to 14.6 "Issue No.4:- 14. (6) What Order?" 8. The issue which is germane for consideration of this Court is Issues No.4. The concerned Court while deciding issue No.4, considered the following : Page No.39-41, Paragraph No.14, 14.1 to 14.6 "Issue No.4:- 14. In the present case, the applicant’s deposition on oath is recorded at Exhibit- 37, wherein the Police Complaint given by her husband is produced at Exhibit-41 and the Police Complaint given by the applicant against her husband is produced at Exhibit-42. It has been submitted that she is living in a accommodation with her children, at present. In the Documentary Evidence, the applicant has produced the police complaint at Exhibit-30, the unilateral agreement for dissolution of marriage executed by the Defendant is produced at Exhibit-31, the original copy of the F.D.R. of Central Bank of India of the Defendant no.1 is produced at Exhibit- 32, the original copy of the F.D.R. of Indian Overseas Bank, Sharusection road, Jamnagar of the Defendant no.1 is produced at Exhibit-33, the original F.D.R. of The Commercial Co.Op. Bank Ltd., Patel Colony Branch, Jamnagar of the Defendant no.1 is produced at Exhibit-34, the receipt of paying fees by the Applicant no.2 in the Bhavans A.K. Doshi Vidhyalay, Jamnagar is produced at Exhibit-35 and the original of F.D.R. of The Navanagar Co.Op. Bank Ltd. of the Defendant no.1 is produced at Exhibit-36. 14.1 The Defendant, vide Documentary Evidence List at Exhibit-48, has produced the original statement of the Savings Bank Account with Kotak Mahindra Bank of the applicant and vide the affidavit at Exhibit-53, the defendant has submitted that the applicant has been earning Rs.25,000/- to 30,000/- per month by giving private tuition and the interest income out of the F.D. with the Kotak Mahindra Bank is Rs.6500/- and out of the F.D. with the Central Bank of India is Rs.2000/-. Thus, the defendant has produced an oral evidence that the applicant is having monthly income of Rs.37,000/-. But, not any documentary or other evidence has been produced therein with regard to the applicant’s income from giving tuition. 14.2 In the present case, both the parties have produced evidence about income of the other party and they have produced the bank records to prove that they are having interest incomes out of fixed deposits. There is no reason to disbelieve the same. 14.2 In the present case, both the parties have produced evidence about income of the other party and they have produced the bank records to prove that they are having interest incomes out of fixed deposits. There is no reason to disbelieve the same. However, with regard to the fact that the applicant has been giving tuition, the applicant as well as the defendant have produced oral evidence, wherein the defendant has submitted that the applicant has been earning about Rs.25,000/- per months out of giving private tuition, whereas the applicant has admitted in her oral evidence that she has been giving tuition to one child and has not given any evidence as to how much does she earn by giving private tuition. In fact, she has used the phrase, “barely making living out of it”. Considering the same, it is obvious that the applicant cannot meet her expenses as well as the expenses of two children out of the income from tuition to one student. It is an undoubted fact. It is an undisputed fact that, two children have born out of the wedlock of the parties and at present, both the children are with the applicant and the defendant does not have responsibility of anyone other than the applicants. 14.3 Under such circumstances, the Applicant No.1 keeps the children with her, ensures their studies, for which a fee-deposit receipt is also produced. Moreover, the Defendant no.1 has admitted in his testimony that, both of his children are pursuing studies, he has not made investments in insurance or otherwise in name of his children and he does not have any documentary evidence about the applicant’s income from giving tuition. 14.4 Perusing the evidence of defendant, it appears that the applicant in present case provides for the studies of two of their children. As one of the children is aged 19 years, due to the limitation of law, the maintenance of one child is not claimed. But, the defendant has admitted the fact that it is the applicant who is maintaining the stated major child. Further, the applicant also bears the cost of their minor son Shivam and his studies. The defendant does not bear any cost and moreover, he has admitted that he has not made any investment in name of his children for their better future. Further, the applicant also bears the cost of their minor son Shivam and his studies. The defendant does not bear any cost and moreover, he has admitted that he has not made any investment in name of his children for their better future. 14.5 Thus, it is the applicant who bears the cost of sustenance, studies and all other responsibilities of the minor as well as the major child. There is an undisputed evidence that even the major child is not capable to make living for herself and she is a student. At this stage, the fact is noteworthy that, the defendant does not have financial responsibility of any other family member, meaning the defendant has not produced and established any substantial and conclusive evidence that he is having responsibility of any other family member. 14.6 Under these circumstances, with a view to ensure that the defendant bears the expenses of Applicant No.2 including the school fees required to be paid to the school, expenses on commutation to and from the school and with a view to ensure that the applicant and the minor son Shivam can meet their bare minimum needs after taking into consideration the preliminary requirements for sustenance, rupee valuation, inflation, prevailing prices of essential items etc. and as it appears in the interest of justice to pass the order that the Defendant no.1 in present case pays Rs.7,500/- towards maintenance of Applicant No.1 and Rs.3,000/- towards education and primary needs of the Applicant no.2 on regular basis and with arrears from the date of application and as the facts as to the Issue No.4 has been partly proved by the applicant, Issue No.4 is determined ‘affirmatively’." 9. The aforesaid was also considered by the learned Sessions Court wherein the learned Sessions Court also re-appreciated the evidence which was considered by the learned Magistrate and which reads thus :- Page No.54, paragraph No.(ii) "(ii) Re-appreciation of evidence and its conclusion vis-a-vis the income and quantum of monetary relief and conclusion in that regard; This is an another area which is hotly contested by the appellant herein saying that the Learned Trail Court has put aside entire norm of assessment of income and presumed something which was not there. To seek to said challenge, it is worthwhile to enter into the realm of evidence once again so as to comprehend the degree of reality in the grievance. To seek to said challenge, it is worthwhile to enter into the realm of evidence once again so as to comprehend the degree of reality in the grievance. Before adverting to the evidence in that regard, it is worthwhile to put on record that Section 106 of Indian Evidence Act put onus on the appellant herein to straight away put his income on record and proceedings of the present action as the fact which is simply in the domain of his personal knowledge. Of course, the wife being a part and parcel of his life and having the knowledge as regards her husband income, but the law expects that it is the husband who has had special knowledge as regards his own income. The information as regards the income especially lies within the knowledge of husband only. Regard being had to the legal matrix spelt out in the preceding part, let us advert to the evidence on record as regards income. The respondent no. 1 herein claims the appellant herein being earned monthly Rs. 50,000/- and in support thereof, she led in evidence various fixed deposit instruments vide Exh. 32 to 36. These fixed are of 2016 and contain the amount of fixed deposit to the tune of approximately 20,00,000/- (twenty lacs) and carries the rate of interest of nine per cent per annum. She talks about her husband is earning very big amount from his business. Per contra the husband has come out with the evidence in the form of Income Tax Return vide Exh. 57 which consists of several pages, but important aspect reveals from the paper which is part of it wherein computation of total income has been shown. The interesting part of that computation is that his gross income is shown to be In computation the important part is income from other sources. This head includes the interest in respect of only saving account and completely silenced about the interest in respect of F.D.R. which are received in evidence vide Exh. 32 to 36. The computation of total income throws one very interesting aspect about his investment in various instruments like L.I.P., P.F., P.P.F. etc. to the tune of Rs.45,437/- The return does not at all reflect about the F.D.R. amount and interest which is being accrued thereon in the year 2016. 32 to 36. The computation of total income throws one very interesting aspect about his investment in various instruments like L.I.P., P.F., P.P.F. etc. to the tune of Rs.45,437/- The return does not at all reflect about the F.D.R. amount and interest which is being accrued thereon in the year 2016. The rough estimate of the appellant's income can be made on the basis of simple calculation that the investment in the form of fixed deposit allows him to earn around Rs.18,000/- per month. That calculation is based upon the investment in F.D.R. to the tune of Rs. 20,00,000/- (Twenty Lacs). The return further reflects about his income from business to the tune of Rs. 1,49,000/- per annum, calculation thereof in terms of monthly basis, it would come to around 12,000/- per month. This is how, the appellant herein seems to have been earning to the tune of Rs. 30,000/- monthly. There is not an iota of evidence indicating the fact that the appellant herein has to sustain anyone else except himself. His family appears to have been consisting of himself, respondent no. 1 wife and respondent no. 2 son. Of course, he has had another son who is an adult one. This tells the story that the income of the husband should be spent on three units namely, respondent no. 1, respondent no. 2 and appellant herein. Distribution of Income of the husband needs to be divided into three units. Each unit would have at least Rs. 10,000/- for sustenance. As the matrimonial relationship expects parity in respect of status of all. The status which could have been enjoyed by the wife and minor child must remain the same even after surfacing the cracks in the matrimonial relationship resulting into loss of Company by way of the forced separation. Break-up of marital relationship causes unbearable trauma that too after such a long cohabitation spanning over almost two decades and having two progeny in the form of sons. The scarce of breaking up of relationship never heals itself and remains as it is lifelong. This agony can never be redressed or assessed in monetary terms. Coming back to the maintenance part from the proof of income, let us look at the maintenance amount made available to respondent no. 1 and 2 herein. Former has been awarded Rs. 7500/- as the maintenance and later one Rs. 3,000/-. This agony can never be redressed or assessed in monetary terms. Coming back to the maintenance part from the proof of income, let us look at the maintenance amount made available to respondent no. 1 and 2 herein. Former has been awarded Rs. 7500/- as the maintenance and later one Rs. 3,000/-. In terms of unit system, it is below par amount, but is well within the limit being put in place by operating in the sphere which creates the threshold of one third of the total income that is being earned by the husband. Awarding of the maintenance to the respondent no. 1 and 2 to the extent stated cannot be said to be capricious, whimsical, arbitrary or perverse and well within the bound of legal and factual matrix. So far as, the shared house is concerned, it is not made available, consequently, awarding of monthly rent of Rs. 4,000/- cannot be said to be excessive considering the prevalent conditions and more particularly the wife and two sons to be stayed put in the accommodation. Even looking from the legal angle as well, the fault cannot be found in legal as well as factual sense as the normal legal rule that has been laid down by Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Anita Tambe (Smt.) Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2007 Cri.LJ (NOC) 773 observing that normally the threshold of maintenance amount should not exceeded 1/3rd of the total income of the husband. Impact of earning by the wife herself needs to be seen from the evidence available on the record and proceedings. In respect of bare words of her earning to the tune of Rs.25,000/- to 30,000/-, they are not being fortified by any concrete evidence. As against this, the respondent no. 1 herein has admitted in her cross-examination that she imparts tuition to one child. This reduces the assertion of the appellant herein to the naught. In the absence of some convincing evidence on this front, the court cannot proceed on the basis of surmises or conjectures and which cannot take place of proof. Factor in respect of earning the interest on F.D. by the respondent no. 1 herein is vehemently and forcefully put in forefront for denial of the maintenance. These fixed deposits are made out of the monetary gift or aid having been had from the maternal home of the respondent no 1 herein. Factor in respect of earning the interest on F.D. by the respondent no. 1 herein is vehemently and forcefully put in forefront for denial of the maintenance. These fixed deposits are made out of the monetary gift or aid having been had from the maternal home of the respondent no 1 herein. That earning appears to be to the tune of Rs.6500/- per month. As against this, the expenditure in respect of his adult son as well the respondent no. 2 requires to be borne by the respondent no. 1 herein. There are overwhelming evidence about the payment of fees in respect of education of respondent no. 2 to be borne by the respondent no. 1 herein. Comparatively, the respondent no. 1 has to bear the responsibility of three members of the family as against the self by the appellant herein. The Comparison of the amount of income which could be there in the hands of the appellant and respondent no. 1 herein throws very equitable pictures as every month husband/appellant would be left with around Rs.16,000/- for himself alone, whereas, the wife respondent no. 1 herein would be left with Rs. 10500/- for three members viz herself, younger son and elder son. Adding to this figure the interest of the F.D., (which is allegedly of the money of her maternal home) to the tune of Rs.6500/- would take the income of three family members to hardly Rs.17,000/- dividing into three parts being approximately Rs.5500/-. Even after adding, the F.D. Income, the husband/appellant herein has been placed on an advantageous position in terms of financial status. It cannot be lost sight of the fact that even if a married women deprived of the company of her husband deserves to enjoy the same status as she was in her matrimonial home. The last point of contest in respect of awarding of the Compensation as regards the domestic violence does not require re-visitation in the absence of concrete and convincing reason. Psychological and physical violence along with pain of crumbling matrimonial tie that too after such a long time always leave very deep and long lasting scarce on the psyche of the victim which can never be redressed by way of any monetary relief. The domestic violence report which is received in evidence vide Exh. 8, is the clear pointer towards the existence of violence in physical as well as psychological terms. The domestic violence report which is received in evidence vide Exh. 8, is the clear pointer towards the existence of violence in physical as well as psychological terms. In that sense, the amount of compensation is very well justified. Remaining aspects of findings of Learned Trail Court remains well within the precinct of factual as well as legal matrix requiring no indulgence. (d) Scrutiny of order of Trial Court; Bearing in mind aforesaid factual aspect emerging from the record, the Court needs to pose question to itself; does the order under challenge have any traits which bring it within the class of arbitrary, perverse. capricious and illegal needing to be interfered by the appellate court? Once again coming to the question of perverseness, arbitrariness and capriciousness of the order, it is worthwhile to quote the meaning thereof from the Tenth Edition of the Black's Law dictionary, which describes; Perverse as; "behaving unreasonably, esp. by deliberately doing the opposite of what a reasonable person might be expected to do." Perverse verdict; "a jury verdict so contrary to the evidence that it justifies the granting of a new trial." Arbitrariness as; "(of a judicial decision) founded on prejudice or preference rather than on reason or fact. This type of decision is often termed arbitrary and capricious." Capriciousness as; "(of a decree) contrary to the evidence or established rules of law." 5) Summing-up; Having considered the reasons assigned in the forgoing paragraph of the present decision and considering the ultimate grant of the prayer to the respondents herein do bring the impugned decision of Learned Trial Court within the precinct of the scope of aforesaid terminology to the extent specified herein-above. In this backdrop, the necessity springs from the justice not to make any indulgence in the final outcome of the said application requiring the rejection of appeal. With altering the reasonings to the extent stated in the preceding part of this order, the point for determination no.1, 2 and 3 are held in negative, whereas the last one is held as per the final order. In this background, the following final order is passed; ORDER:- This Criminal Appeal stands rejected. The order is pronounced in the open court on 19th day of July, 2018 under my hand and seal. Date:19.07.2018 Place: Jamnagar" 10. In this background, the following final order is passed; ORDER:- This Criminal Appeal stands rejected. The order is pronounced in the open court on 19th day of July, 2018 under my hand and seal. Date:19.07.2018 Place: Jamnagar" 10. POSITION OF LAW :- At this stage, it is apposite to refer to the law as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Garment Craft Versus Prakash Chand Goel reported in AIR 2022 SC 422 , para 18 reads thus :- "18. Having heard the counsel for the parties, we are clearly of the view that the impugned order is contrary to law and cannot be sustained for several reasons, but primarily for deviation from the limited jurisdiction exercised by the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The High Court exercising supervisory jurisdiction does not act as a court of first appeal to re-appreciate, reweigh the evidence or facts upon which the determination under challenge is based. Supervisory jurisdiction is not to correct every error of fact or even a legal flaw when the final finding is justified or can be supported. The High Court is not to substitute its own decision on facts and conclusion, for that of the inferior court or tribunal. The jurisdiction exercised is in the nature of correctional jurisdiction to set right grave dereliction of duty or flagrant abuse, violation of fundamental principles of law or justice. The power under Article 227 is exercised sparingly in appropriate cases, like when there is no evidence at all to justify, or the finding is so perverse that no reasonable person can possibly come to such a conclusion that the court or tribunal has come to. It is axiomatic that such discretionary relief must be exercised to ensure there is no miscarriage of justice. Explaining the scope of jurisdiction under Article 227, this Court in Estralla Rubber v. Dass Estate (P) Ltd. has observed:- “6. The scope and ambit of exercise of power and jurisdiction by a High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is examined and explained in a number of decisions of this Court. Explaining the scope of jurisdiction under Article 227, this Court in Estralla Rubber v. Dass Estate (P) Ltd. has observed:- “6. The scope and ambit of exercise of power and jurisdiction by a High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is examined and explained in a number of decisions of this Court. The exercise of power under this article involves a duty on the High Court to keep inferior courts and tribunals within the bounds of their authority and to see that they do the duty expected or required of them in a legal manner. The High Court is not vested with any unlimited prerogative to correct all kinds of hardship or wrong decisions made within the limits of the jurisdiction of the subordinate courts or tribunals. Exercise of this power and interfering with the orders of the courts or tribunals is restricted to cases of serious dereliction of duty and flagrant violation of fundamental principles of law or justice, where if the High Court does not interfere, a grave injustice remains uncorrected. It is also well settled that the High Court while acting under this article cannot exercise its power as an appellate court or substitute its own judgment in place of that of the subordinate court to correct an error, which is not apparent on the face of the record. The High Court can set aside or ignore the findings of facts of an inferior court or tribunal, if there is no evidence at all to justify or the finding is so perverse, that no reasonable person can possibly come to such a conclusion, which the court or tribunal has come to.” 11. This Court has also gone through the documents produced on record by Mr. Pratik Jasani, the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, for perusal and consideration. The income tax return of the year 2015-16 at page No.61-62, the petitioner's net income is Rs.1,28,060/-, considering the income tax return of the year 2016-17 duly produced on record at page No.81, the petitioner's net income is Rs.95,952/- and considering the income tax return of the year 2017-18 duly produced on record at page No.102, the petitioner's net income is Rs.1,26,100/-. Considering the income tax returns, the FDR which were received as an evidence below Exh.32 to 36, and computation of total income and in the investment in various instruments like LIC, PF, PPF to the tune of Rs.45,437/-; the rough calculation of the petitioner's income has been arrived at Rs.30,000/- monthly. The respondent No.2 has not claimed any maintenance towards elder son who is a major. The maintenance which is claimed for respondent No.2 herself and minor son. Considering the fact that the petitioner's income has been taken to the tune of Rs.30,000/- monthly. The learned Magistrate while awarding Rs.7,500/- to the respondent No.2 and Rs.3,000/- towards maintenance of minor son and Rs.4,000/- per month towards rent, does not in any way, in view of this Court require any interference. The aforesaid are findings of the fact arrived by both the Courts. This Court while exercising discretion under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India does not deems it fit to entertain the present petition, in view of the fact that the award of maintenance which has been granted by the learned Magistrate by order dated 27.10.2017 which has been duly confirmed by the Sessions Court by order dated 19.07.2018 in Criminal Appeal No.131 of 2017 being just and proper, the same is after taking into consideration the evidence on record, no error of law could be said to have been committed by the Courts below. In view of this Court no error of law could be said to have been committed by both the Courts below. Consequently, the petition fails and the same is dismissed. 12. For the aforesaid reasons, the present application stands dismissed. Interim relief, if any, granted earlier shall stand vacated.