Gujarat High Court
Sarfrajulhaq Mazharulhaq Ansari vs State Of Gujarat & 4 on 17 June, 2016
Author: S.G.Shah
Bench: S.G.Shah
R/CR.RA/268/2016 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (FOR MAINTENANCE) NO. 268 of
2016
==========================================================
SARFRAJULHAQ MAZHARULHAQ ANSARI....Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 4....Respondent(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR SS SAIYED, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR MANAN MEHTA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.G.SHAH
Date : 17/06/2016
ORAL ORDER
1.Heard learned advocate Mr.S.S.Saiyed for the applicant.
2.The applicant has challenged the judgment dated 8.1.2016 in Criminal Misc.Application No.2165 of 2013 by Family Court No.3, Ahmedabad. Such application is preferred by present respondents No.2 to 5 being wife and minor children of the applicant - husband, claiming maintenance u/s.125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The impugned judgment shows that, though duly served, applicant has failed to protest the application either by filing an appearance or by filing his written statement and even he failed to cross-examine the respondent - wife. Therefore, trial Court has, considering the proof of income of the Page 1 of 3 HC-NIC Page 1 of 3 Created On Sat Jun 18 04:37:06 IST 2016 R/CR.RA/268/2016 ORDER applicant - husband, awarded an amount of Rs.3,000/- towards maintenance of wife and Rs.1,500/- each towards maintenance of children. Thereby, the total amount towards maintenance comes to Rs.7,500/-.
3.Now, the applicant has come forward by filing such revision application contending that the trial Court has considered the salary slip for one month only and therefore, he wants to produce salary slips of different months to show that his salary is not fixed, as he works as a daily wager and that his net salary is between Rs.5,000/- to Rs.9,000/-. However, the fact remains that all such documents, including some other documents, which are for the first time produced on record of this revision application, were never produced before the trial Court. Therefore, there is no irregularity or illegality in the impugned judgment. Moreover, as per the Section 126(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, applicant has an alternative remedy to challenge such judgment before the same Court. In that case, if the impugned judgment is quashed being ex-parte, then, applicant would get a chance to prove his case before the Family Court.
4.In view of such fact also, there is no substance in the revision application and therefore, there is no reason to modify the Page 2 of 3 HC-NIC Page 2 of 3 Created On Sat Jun 18 04:37:06 IST 2016 R/CR.RA/268/2016 ORDER impugned judgment. The reference to the case of Shamima Farooqui Vs. Shahid Khan reproted in AIR 2015 SC 2025 is sufficient to put an end to the present controversy.
5.Learned advocate for the applicant seeks permission to withdraw the present revision application at this stage so as to enable the applicant to file an application u/s.126(2) of the Cr.P.C. before the concerned trial Court.
6.In view of above facts and circumstances, the petition is disposed of as withdrawn. However, it is made clear that if applicant prefers an application u/s.126(2) of the Cr.P.C., the concerned Family Court shall decide such application without being influence by the present order and withdrawal of this revision application and shall decide it in accordance with law.
7.Direct service is permitted.
(S.G.SHAH, J.) binoy Page 3 of 3 HC-NIC Page 3 of 3 Created On Sat Jun 18 04:37:06 IST 2016