Gujarat High Court
Sandeepbhai Kantibhai Patel vs State Of Gujarat & on 17 October, 2016
Author: S.G.Shah
Bench: S.G.Shah
R/CR.RA/622/2014 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (FOR MAINTENANCE) NO. 622 of
2014
==========================================================
SANDEEPBHAI KANTIBHAI PATEL....Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 1....Respondent(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR NS SHETH, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR SURESH S PATEL, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR NILESH A PANDYA, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR KP RAWAL, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.G.SHAH
Date : 17/10/2016
ORAL ORDER
1. Nobody is present for the respondent No.2 even in second call. The record shows that report of mediation from the District Court is not received though matter is referred to Mediation Centre of District Court as back as on 28.11.2014. Learned advocate for the applicant submits that the Family Court is hard-pressing for recovery of the amount of maintenance awarded by impugned order. By impugned order, the Family Court, Vadodara has granted interim maintenance of Rs.3,000/-. Therefore, practically, revision application is not maintainable since the impugned order is an interlocutory order and hence, while issuing notice of order dated 17.10.2014, it was specifically made clear that Page 1 of 2 HC-NIC Page 1 of 2 Created On Tue Oct 18 02:02:28 IST 2016 R/CR.RA/622/2014 ORDER notice is to be issued only for settlement. Till date, there is no settlement between the parties. Therefore, to avoid any coercive action against the applicant, so as to sending him behind the bars for non-payment of maintenance, when he has paid some amount as submitted by the applicant, the Family Court, Vadodara is directed to complete the hearing of main proceedings within 60 days from the date of receipt of this order without fail, without taking any coercive step against the applicant. However, it is made clear that applicant has to pay the amount of interim maintenance as per impugned order.
2. Since such order is passed in absence of respondent No.2, let the matter be listed again on 19.10.2016.
3. Direct service today is permitted.
(S.G.SHAH, J.) binoy Page 2 of 2 HC-NIC Page 2 of 2 Created On Tue Oct 18 02:02:28 IST 2016