Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Gujarat High Court

Mehulbhai Shantibhai Manani vs State Of Gujarat on 24 December, 2019

Author: B.N. Karia

Bench: B.N. Karia

        R/CR.RA/1203/2019                                          ORDER




         IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

        R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 1203 of 2019

==========================================================
                     MEHULBHAI SHANTIBHAI MANANI
                                Versus
                          STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. KISHAN H DAIYA(6929) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR.KISHAN PRAJAPATI(7074) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3
MS. M.H. BHATT, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.N. KARIA

                            Date : 24/12/2019
                             ORAL ORDER

1. The applicant has challenged the impugned judgment and order dated 19.02.2019 passed by learned Judge, Family Court, Rajkot in Criminal Misc. Application No.1036 of 2016.

2. Heard learned advocate for the applicant.

3. It is submitted by leaned advocate for the applicant that impugned judgment and order passed by the Family Court is contrary to the facts and evidence produced on record. No proper opportunity was given to the present applicant by the court below and in absence of learned advocate engaged by the present applicant, the order was passed granting maintenance to the respondent-wife. That, applicant is having liability of his aged parents and his father is Page 1 of 2 Downloaded on : Thu Dec 26 21:10:39 IST 2019 R/CR.RA/1203/2019 ORDER bed ridden condition due the paralysis and applicant has to bear the medical expenses of his parents and therefore, he could not be able to pay the amount of maintenance as ordered by the Family Court. That, on account of miscommunication from the advocate engaged by him, present applicant could not remain present. Therefore the impugned judgment and order passed by the Family Court is contrary to oral as well as documentary evidence. However, applicant has shown his bonafides by depositing an amount of Rs.1,90,000/- before the Family Court by way of part maintenance.

4. Issue requires consideration.

5. Notice returnable on 28.01.2020.

6. Learned APP waives service of notice for and on behalf of respondent-State.

(B.N. KARIA, J) SUYASH Page 2 of 2 Downloaded on : Thu Dec 26 21:10:39 IST 2019