HC: 4200 PM maintenance on income of 15000 PM (assessed income by HC)
SCR.A/1627/2010 3/3 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 1627 of 2010
PARESHBHAI ARVINDBHAI PATEL – Applicant(s)
REKHABEN BABUBHAI PATEL & 2 – Respondent(s)
========================================================= Appearance :
MR PRADIP D BHATE for Applicant(s) : 1, None for Respondent(s) : 1 – 2.
MS CHETNA SHAH ADDL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for Respondent(s) : 3, =========================================================
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
Date : 17/09/2010
Petitioner is husband of the respondent No.1 and father of the minor respondent No.2. He is required to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.2200/- to his wife and Rs.2000/- to his minor son by order dated 30^th November 2009 passed by the learned Magistrate, Dahod. His revision application against the said order came to be dismissed by the Sessions Court vide order dated 27^th July 2010. He has, therefore, filed the present petition.
Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Courts below have wrongly assessed income of the petitioner going against the documents on record. He submitted that amount of maintenance is excessive and calls for interference.
From the orders under challenge and in particular one passed by the learned Magistrate, it clearly emerges that the petitioner is only son of his father. His mother is also passed away. Father has retired from Railways Department which is a pensionable service. Sister of the petitioner is married in USA and settled there. His father has been frequently visiting her in USA. He has also in past traveled to London for some social reasons.
It further emerges that the petitioner in his cross examination admitted that he is owner of one residential house which is in his exclusive name. Admittedly the father of the petitioner is also co-owner of piece of agricultural land.
Averments of the wife before the Courts below was that the husband is doing electrical work since he has done technical course in this field and has two shops from where he operates. Husband, however, has produced certificate of Mamlatdar suggesting that his yearly income is only Rs.20,000/-.
Two courts below have assessed income of the petitioner much higher on the basis of the evidence, some of which, I have recorded hereinabove.
These are purely factual findings. I have no reason to take different view though version of the wife is that he is earning Rs.50,000/- per month was discarded by the Courts. However, the Courts below believed that the petitioner is able bodied person and has been involved in the electrical work, would be earning about Rs.15,000/- per month. Other family circumstances and living style lead by the family convince me not to interfere with the impugned orders.
Petition is, therefore, not entertained and stands dismissed accordingly.
( AKIL KURESHI, J. )