Home > Judgement > HC: Duty of the husband to maintain wife first, then only brother, sister and mother

HC: Duty of the husband to maintain wife first, then only brother, sister and mother

CR.RA/587/2009 2/2 ORDER

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION No. 587 of 2009

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

MOHD.IRFAN USMANGANI SHEIKH – Applicant(s)

Versus

STATE OF GUJARAT & 1 – Respondent(s)

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

MR PRATIK B BAROT for Applicant(s) : 1, MS ML SHAH, APP for Respondent(s) : 1, MR MM TIRMIZI for Respondent(s) : 2, =========================================================

CORAM :

HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI

Date : 19/07/2010

ORAL ORDER

Petitioner is husband of respondent no.2. He has challenged an order dated 31.3.2009 passed by the Family Court, Ahmedabad directing to pay maintenance of Rs. 1500/-per month to wife.

Counsel for the petitioner submitted that amount of maintenance fixed is excessive. That the cohabitation out of the marriage lasted for less than five months. Petitioner is not able to earn enough to support wife and other family members which include his brother, sister and mother.

From the perusal of the judgement under consideration, however, I find that the petitioner is stated to be doing stitching work. He is residing in the city of Ahmedabad. He is stated to be about 23 years of age. As an able bodied person and being a skilled worker, it cannot be believed that petitioner does not earn anything at all. Brother of the petitioner is stated to be about 26 years of age. If the petitioner was keen to look after his brother, it was his first duty to maintain his wife.

Considering all these aspects of the matter, in my opinion, order passed by the Family Court does not suffer from any infirmity. Petition is therefore, dismissed.

However, if the petitioner pays arrears in six equal monthly installments, starting from 10.8.2010, there shall be no coercive recovery against him, provided he continues to deposit prospective monthly maintenance. However, in case of any violation of above conditions, it would be open for the Family Court to proceed further with the recovery proceedings.

(Akil Kureshi,J.)

Advertisements
Categories: Judgement
  1. No comments yet.
  1. September 8, 2011 at 11:46 am

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: