Gujarat High Court
Harpalsinh Sardarsinh Jhala vs State Of Gujarat on 31 January, 2020
Author: B.N. Karia
Bench: B.N. Karia
R/CR.RA/135/2020 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 135 of 2020
==========================================================
HARPALSINH SARDARSINH JHALA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR VICKY B MEHTA(5422) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3
MS MH BHATT, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.N. KARIA
Date : 31/01/2020
ORAL ORDER
1. By way of this application under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the Code"), the applicant has prayed for quashing and setting aside the order dated 08.01.2020 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bhavnagar below Exh.20 in Criminal Misc. Application No.767 of 2017, whereby the application preferred by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 herein under the provisions of Order 11 Rule 12 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is allowed and the applicant is directed to produce the documents as prayed for in the application within 15 days from the date of the order.
Page 1 of 3 Downloaded on : Sat Feb 15 01:01:52 IST 2020
R/CR.RA/135/2020 ORDER
2. Heard Mr.Vicky R. Mehta, learned counsel for the applicant.
3. It is submitted by learned advocate for the applicant that the application below Exh.20 preferred by the respondent-wife in a proceedings under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was not maintainable, as it was given under Order 11 Rule 12 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The order passed by the learned Family Court, Bhavnagar directing the applicant to produce on record the documents as stated in the application within a period of 15 days from the date of the order was contrary to the principles of law. The provisions of Order 11 Rule 12 read with Section 151 of C.P.C. were not considered and appreciated by the Family Court. With regard to the maintainability of the application and reply of the present applicant vide Exh.21 was not at all considered in the findings that it was specific offence of the present petitioner that in an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. praying for maintenance, provisions of Order 11 Rule 12 read with Section 151 of C.P.C.
were not at all applicable. It is submitted that Page 2 of 3 Downloaded on : Sat Feb 15 01:01:52 IST 2020 R/CR.RA/135/2020 ORDER
while deciding the maintenance application of year 2017, the documents of the year 2013 to 2017, were not at all necessary as the same would not clear any correct picture and idea of the financial status and position of the present applicant.
4. Learned advocate for the applicant has referred Section 10 of the Family Court Act and argued that provisions of C.P.C. would not be applicable in a proceedings under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
5. Hence, issue requires consideration.
Notice for final disposal, returnable on 14.02.2020. Learned APP waives service of notice for and on behalf of respondent-State.
6. Meanwhile, if any application would be preferred by the applicant, the same would be considered by the court below till the next date of hearing in accordance with law.
(B.N. KARIA, J) KUMAR ALOK Page 3 of 3 Downloaded on : Sat Feb 15 01:01:52 IST 2020