Gujarat High Court
Lakhman Bhikhabhai Songara vs State Of Gujarat & 4 on 16 December, 2015
Author: J.B.Pardiwala
Bench: J.B.Pardiwala
R/SCR.A/420/2015 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (QUASHING) NO. 420 of 2015
==========================================================
LAKHMAN BHIKHABHAI SONGARA....Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 4....Respondent(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR MEHUL M MEHTA, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR PREMAL S RACHH, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 2 - 5
MR HK PATEL, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA
Date : 16/12/2015
ORAL ORDER
On 6th February 2015, the following order was passed :
"1. Heard learned advocate Shri Mehul Mehta for the petitioner. Learned advocate submitted that marriage life of petitioner and respondent No.2 is 20 years. This Court may issue notice for the purpose of settlement. He has also stated under the instructions given by his client that petitioner is ready and willing to deposit Rs.50,000/- within a period of one week from today and he will also deposit another amount of Rs.1,00,000/- within six weeks from today before Registry of this Court.
2. Looking to the submissions advanced by the learned advocate for the petitioner, issue NOTICE to the respondents, returnable on 04.03.2015 on condition that petitioner shall deposit Rs.50,000/- within a period of one week from today before the Registry of this Court and he will deposit further amount of Rs.1,00,000/- within a period of six weeks from today before the Registry of this Court. Learned APP Ms.Punani waives service of notice on behalf of respondent No.1-State of Gujarat.
Page 1 of 4
HC-NIC Page 1 of 4 Created On Sat Dec 19 01:29:19 IST 2015
R/SCR.A/420/2015 ORDER
3. On this condition, Execution Proceedings No.150 of 2014 initiated by the respondents No.2 to 5 before the learned Magistrate Court is hereby stayed till the next date of hearing. Direct service qua other respondents is permitted."
On 1st April 2015, the following order was passed :
"It is jointly submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the parties that there is every likelihood of some settlement being arrived at, since the dispute is between the husband and his wife.
It appears that the Revisional Court has ordered the applicant-husband to pay Rs. 12,000 per month towards maintenance of his wife and three minor children. It appears that the applicant, as on today, is in arrears of about Rs. 4,32,000/-. At the time of issue of notice, he was directed to deposit an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- with the Registry of this Court. I am of the view that at least this amount deposited by the husband should go to the wife. In such circumstances, I permit the wife to withdraw this amount. The Registry shall accordingly draw a cheque in the name of the respondent No.2 - Kusumben Lakhmanbhai Songara, and hand it over after proper verification.
Mr. Raj, the learned advocate for the respondent No.2 pointed out that it is very difficult for his client to travel all the way from Jamnagar to Ahmedabad. In such circumstances, the Registry shall hand-over the account payee cheque drawn in favour of the respondent No.2 to Mr. Raj, the learned advocate appearing for the respondent No.2. The interim order earlier granted shall continue till the next date. Let this matter appear after two weeks i.e. on 15.4.2015."
It appears that the parties have not been able to arrive at any amicable settlement. Therefore, the settlement has to be ruled out.
As recorded earlier, the petitioner-husband is in arrears Page 2 of 4 HC-NIC Page 2 of 4 Created On Sat Dec 19 01:29:19 IST 2015 R/SCR.A/420/2015 ORDER of about Rs.3 lac after the deposit of Rs.1,50,000=00 with the registry of this Court. The wife has withdrawn the amount of Rs.1,50,000=00 deposited by the husband.
I am told that the wife, along with three children, is residing as on today at her brother's house.
According to Mr.Mehta, the learned advocate appearing for the husband, his client is suffering from polio and, therefore, he is not in a position to do any work and maintain the family. This argument is outright rejected. I am told that he is in depression too. Whatever may be the difficulties, the husband is obliged in law to maintain his wife and minor children. He cannot shirk from his moral and legal responsibility on any ground. There are allegations and counter-allegations. There are allegations levelled by the wife that the husband is treating her with cruelty. Of course, such allegations have been denied.
In any view of the matter, I do not find any error, not to speak of any error of law, said to have been committed by the revisional Court in passing the impugned order.
In such circumstances, this application fails and is hereby rejected. Notice is discharged. Ad-interim order earlier granted stands vacated.
If the amount of maintenance is not paid and the arrears are not cleared, it will be open for the wife to initiate appropriate legal proceedings before the appropriate forum in accordance with law.
Page 3 of 4 HC-NIC Page 3 of 4 Created On Sat Dec 19 01:29:19 IST 2015 R/SCR.A/420/2015 ORDER (J.B.PARDIWALA, J.) MOIN Page 4 of 4 HC-NIC Page 4 of 4 Created On Sat Dec 19 01:29:19 IST 2015