Gujarat High Court
Vijaykumar Manubhai Prajapati vs Dipika W/O. Vijaykumar Prajapati D/O. ... on 4 May, 2016
Author: S.H.Vora
Bench: S.H.Vora
C/SCA/7457/2016 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7457 of 2016
===========================================================
VIJAYKUMAR MANUBHAI PRAJAPATI....Petitioner(s)
Versus
DIPIKA W/O. VIJAYKUMAR PRAJAPATI D/O. UTTAMBHAI
MORARBHAI....Respondent(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
MR VASANTS SHAH, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
================================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.H.VORA
Date : 04/05/2016
ORAL ORDER
[1] By way of present petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the order dated 21.03.2016 passed below Exh.12 in H.M.P. No.507 of 2014, whereby the learned Judge, Family Court, Vadodara has granted interim alimony at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per month in favour of respondent-wife from the date of application till final disposal of main H.M.P. No.507 of 2014 and has also ordered to pay Rs.1,000/-to meet with the expenses of the proceedings initiated by the petitioner-husband.
[2] Learned advocate Mr.Vasant Shah appearing for the petitioner would contend that respondent-wife has been awarded Rs.2,000/- under the provisions of Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and also Rs.2,000/- per month under the provisions of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act. Learned advocate would further contend that there is no iota of evidence placed on record to show that the petitioner is earning Rs.50,000/- by doing business of polishing diamond and Rs.30,000/- working as a LIC agent and earns about Rs.80,000/- per month.
Page 1 of 3HC-NIC Page 1 of 3 Created On Fri May 06 03:07:33 IST 2016 C/SCA/7457/2016 ORDER [3] Having heard the submissions made at bar and impugned order passed by learned Family Judge, it is evidently clear that the petitioner has not placed on record any documentary evidence so as to place true and correct income before the learned trial Court. In reply filed by the petitioner, he has simply denied the facts asserted by the respondent-wife in her application below Exh.12. It is matter of fact that the petitioner has not placed any evidence on record to indicate that the petitioner cannot work as LIC agent on account of the fact that he is simply 9 th standard passed and for working as LIC agent, a person requires to have minimum qualification of holding of 10th standard certificte.
[4] In nutshell, various contentions to resist application below Exh.12, the petitioner has not placed any iota of evidence before the learned trial Judge and also placed before this Court except bare words of submissions.
[5] In light of this position, when petitioner though holding best evidence in his possession is not producing before the learned trial Court, there is no reason to interfere with the finding of fact recorded by learned trial Judge in absence of any evidence and therefore, the learned trial Judge has rightly presumed petitioner's income at Rs.30,000/-per month. This assessment of income done at the hands of learned trial Judge does not warrant interference at the hands of this Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the present petition being devoid of any merits both at law and facts is hereby rejected at admission stage.
Page 2 of 3HC-NIC Page 2 of 3 Created On Fri May 06 03:07:33 IST 2016 C/SCA/7457/2016 ORDER (S.H.VORA, J.) siddharth Page 3 of 3 HC-NIC Page 3 of 3 Created On Fri May 06 03:07:33 IST 2016