JUDGMENT :

1. By way of present application, the applicant has requested to quash and set aside the judgment and order dated 13.08.2021 passed by learned Family Court at Ahmedabad in Criminal Misc. Application No. 450 of 2013.

2. Brief facts of the present case are as under :

That, the marriage of the applicant and respondent no.2 was solemnized on 24.11.2008 at Ahmedabad and out of their wedlock, one daughter namely Brahmi was born and later on matrimonial disputes were started between the applicant and the respondent no.2 and therefore, the respondent no.2 had left her marital home with the respondent no.3 and started residing at her parental home. Thereafter, applicant preferred an application being CRMA No. 356 of 2022 for getting custody of his daughter from the respondent no.2 as well as the respondent no.2 has filed application being Criminal Misc. Application No. 450 of 2013 for getting maintenance. Thereafter, the applicant had preferred HMP Suit No. 1541 of 2012 for divorce as well as application under Section 6(4) of the Hindu Guardians and Wards Act for getting custody of their daughter before the learned Family Court, which came to be withdrawn. Thereafter, applicant was constrained to prefer an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act before the learned Family Court, Nashik for conjugal rights being HMP No. 82 of 2014 as well as applicant preferred Hindu Marriage Petition No. 196 of 2016 before the learned Family Court, Nashik and thereafter, various litigation were initiated for the custody of the child and thereafter, the respondent no.2 has filed Criminal Misc. Application No. 450 of 2013 for maintenance and after hearing both the parties, learned Family Court, Ahmedabad has partly allowed such application of the respondent no.2 directing the applicant to pay Rs. 10,000/- per month to the respondent no.2 and Rs. 5,000/- per month to the respondent no.3 towards maintenance from the ate of filing the maintenance application i.e., 04.03.2013. Hence, being aggrieved by the said order, applicant has approached this court by way of present revision application.

3. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties.

4. It was submitted by learned advocate for the applicant that learned Family Court has erred in overlooking the plethora of evidence produced on record by the applicant which was having much more credibility as against the evidence produced by the respondent no.2 herein to prove the income as well as the conduct and behaviour of the respondent no.2 towards the applicant. The applicant has placed on record his income evidence to demonstrate that the applicant is not earning what has been contended by the respondent no.2 and the respondent no.2 has given an exaggerated figure just to prejudice the learned Family Court and for procuring an order of maintenance at a higher rate. That, learned Family Court has erred in believing the case of the respondent no.2 as a gospel truth and overlooking clinching and overwhelming evidence produced on record by the applicant to prove his income. That, the learned Family Court has erred in passing the impugned order of granting maintenance to respondent no.3 and erred in overlooking the evidence produced on record by the applicant to demonstrate that the respondent no.3 is residing with him only and even though by ignoring the fact that the respondent no.3 is residing with the applicant, learned Family Court has passed an order of granting maintenance to the respondent no.3. That, learned Family Court ought not to have gone on assumptions and presumptions and also should not have overlooked the documentary evidence produced by the applicant. That, the impugned order is passed on erroneous assumptions, is of excess of jurisdiction and violative of principles of natural justice, arbitrary, capricious and arrived at a finding which is perverse and based on no material. That, the same suffers from vice of patent error in procedure and causing manifest injustice to t