Husband showed income as 2000/-PM. Family court ordered 3000/- PM !!
Gujarat High Court Case Information System
SCR.A/1689/2011 2/ 2 ORDER
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 1689 of 2011
GANPATSINH PARMAR – Applicant
MAHENDRASINH PARMAR D/O JASHVANTSINH K RAJPUT & 1 – Respondents
JV JAPEE for the Applicant. None for Respondent No.1. MR LB
DABHI, APP for Respondent No.2.
MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH
present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioner – husband to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 30/10/2010 passed by learned Additional Judge, Family Court, Vadodara in Criminal Misc.Application No.1624 of 2010, by which, learned Family Court has awarded a sum of Rs.3,000/- per month to respondent No.1 – wife towards maintenance.
learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that learned Family Court has materially erred in awarding a sum of Rs.3,000/- per month to respondent No.1-wife towards maintenance when income of the petitioner-husband is Rs.2,000/- per month. She has submitted that the petitioner is serving as temporary employee in Airtel Company and his salary is Rs.2,000/- per month and that respondent No.1-wife has failed to produce any documentary evidence with respect to the income of the petitioner- husband. It is further submitted that in absence of any documentary evidence on record with respect to income of the petitioner- husband, learned Family Court has materially erred in awarding Rs.3,000/- per month to respondent No.1 – wife towards maintenance.
Ms.Japee, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner and considered the impugned judgement and order passed by learned Family Court, Vadodara.
the outset, it is required to be noted that as observed by learned Trial Court, the petitioner has tried to suppress his income. It is also required to be noted that the petitioner has not produced his salary slip issued by the Company. It is not believable that the Company like Airtel would not issue salary slip to the petitioner. It is also not believable that income of the petitioner is Rs.2,000/- per month. In the facts and circumstances of the case more particularly considering price rise, inflation, etc, it cannot be said that learned Family Court has committed any error and/or illegality in awarding amount of maintenance to respondent No.1-wife, which calls for interference of this Court in exercise of power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
view of the above and for the reasons stated hereinabove, there is no substance in the present petition, which deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.