Home > Judgement, Judgement > Gujrat HC: Multiple maintenance is not illegal

Gujrat HC: Multiple maintenance is not illegal

SCA/15511/2010 3/3 ORDER

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 15511 of 2010

=========================================================

KAUSHIKBHAI DHULABHAI DARJI – Petitioner(s)

Versus

PRAGNABEN KAUSHIKBHAI DARJI D/O RAGHUBHAI BHAGWANDAS – Respondent(s)

========================================================= Appearance :

MR BHARAT JANI for Petitioner(s) : 1,

None for Respondent(s) : 1,

=========================================================

CORAM :

HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI

Date : 11/01/2011

ORAL ORDER

1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 08.04.2010 passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Mehsana below application Exh. 24 in H.M.P. No. 27 of 2009 and the order dated 30.09.2010 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Mehsana in Civil Revision Application No. 2 of 2010 whereby the said application was rejected.

2. The short facts of the case are that the respondent-wife had preferred Criminal Misc. Application No. 730 of 2007 under Section 125 of Cr. P.C. before the trial Court claiming maintenance. The trial Court after hearing the parties, vide order dated 25.02.2009 allowed the said application and fixed the maintenance allowance at Rs.600/- per month. Against the said order, the respondent preferred Criminal Revision Application No. 47 of 2009 before the Criminal Court, which came to be allowed vide order dated 01.06.2009. Against the said order, the petitioner preferred Special Criminal Application No. 1575 of 2009 before this Court, This Court vide order dated 03.02.2010 allowed the said application and set aside the order dated 01.06.2009 passed by the Criminal Court.

2.1. Against the said order, the respondent-wife preferred an interim application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, for interim maintenance, which came to be allowed vide order dated 08.04.2010. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred Civil Revision Application No. 2 of 2010 before the revisional Court. The revisional Court vide order dated 30.09.2010 rejected the said application. Hence, this petition.

3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the documents on record. The petitioner had filed a revision application in question against the order passed by the trial Court on an interim application whereby, the petitioner has been directed to pay an amount of Rs.400/- per month as maintenance to the respondent herein. It appears from the record that in the separate proceedings filed under Section 125 of Cr. P.C. the concerned criminal Court has also directed the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.600/- per month as maintenance to the respondent. One of the contention raised by the petitioner was that when the criminal Court concerned had already directed the petitioner to pay maintenance to the respondent which the petitioner has been paying, then the trial Court in the H.M.P. Proceedings ought not to have ordered the petitioner to pay the maintenance on an interim application. However, I am not impressed by the above contention raised by the petitioner inasmuch as by now it is well settled that the proceedings under H.M.P. and the proceedings under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. are totally different and a person can seek maintenance under both the proceedings. Therefore, so far as interim maintenance under two different acts are concerned, the same is permissible.

4. So far as the income of the petitioner is concerned, the revisional Court has recorded that the petitioner was earning Rs.2,500/- per month as salary from the Milk Co-operative Society and another Rs.4,000/- per month by doing additional work. Considering the income of the petitioner and the present day expenditure, the amount of maintenance awarded by the trial Court is just and reasonable. In my view the revisional Court has rightly appreciated the law on the subject and has rejected the revision application of the petitioner. I am in complete agreement with the reasonings given by the revisional Court in the impugned order and hence, find no reasons to interfere with the same.

5. Consequently, the petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.

[K.S. JHAVERI, J.]

Advertisements
Categories: Judgement, Judgement
  1. Sonu
    January 13, 2011 at 10:24 am

    When a marriage breaks same suffering is experienced by the husband then why the woman isnt directed to give maintenace

  2. Sonu
    January 13, 2011 at 10:25 am

    When a marriage breaks same suffering is experienced by the husband then why the wife isnt directed to give maintenace

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: