The central legal point established in the judgment is the husband's duty to maintain his wife and children, as emphasized by the legal provisions and ratio laid down by various High Courts and the Supreme Court.

JUDGMENT :

SAMIR J. DAVE, J.

1. By way of present application, the applicant has prayed to quash and set aside judgment and order dated 02.08.2021 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Vadodara in Criminal Misc. Application No. 408 of 2019.

2. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties as well as learned APP for the respondent-State.

3. Brief facts of the case are that son of the present applicant got married with respondent no. 2 under the Hindu rites and rituals. Thereafter, both lived together as husband and wife and out of the said wedlock, there were two children. The respondent no. 2 thereafter was driven away by the son of the applicant by giving physical and mental torture and also did not take care for providing any maintenance to her and their two children. Therefore, the respondent no. 2-wife has filed Criminal Misc. Application No. 318 of 1999, which was partly allowed by the learned JMFC, Vadodara vide order dated 31.01.2004 and the learned Family Court has granted maintenance of Rs.1,500/- per month in all to respondent no. 2-wife and two children (Rs.500/- each). Being aggrieved by the said order the respondent no. 2-wife has filed Criminal Misc. Application No. 2188 of 2010 for enhancement of maintenance amount, which was partly allowed by the learned Family Court, Vadodara vide order dated 31.01.2004 and the learned Family Court has enhanced the amount of maintenance from Rs.500/- per month to Rs.2,500/- per month to respondent-wife alongwith both the daughters and Rs.3,000/- per month from the date 09.12.2009. Thereafter, the respondent no. 2-wife has preferred Criminal Misc. application No. 408 of 2019 before the learned Family Court to recover amount of maintenance, which was not deposited by the son of the present applicant and therefore, the learned Family Court issued warrant against the applicant- husband and sent to the judicial custody for non-payment of the amount of maintenance. Hence, this application.

4. Learned advocate Mr. Pritesh Chhatriwala for the applicant submitted that the learned Family Court, Vadodara has erred in granting the monthly maintenance to the applicant, which is illegal and arbitrary and not in accordance with law. That the learned Family Court erroneously overlooked material aspect that son of applicant has responsibility of other family members too. That the learned Family Court has erred in not appreciating the fact that respondent no. 2-wife and two daughters are working and earning persons, and hence, it is very harsh order to keep son of the applicant in jail. That the learned Family Court erroneously overlooked the fact that respondent nos.2 to 4 were filing numerous applications and warrants were issued against the son of the applicant. Thus, on the basis of such warrants, the police had been harassing son of the applicant at his working place. The son of the applicant being government servant could not attend his service regularly as he was in continuously under the threat of arrest by the police and ultimately, son of the applicant was ordered to be terminated from his government service due to his absence by order dated 26.07.2021. He also submitted that mother of the applicant is 70 years old and living with his son, who is in jail and at this stage she has to run between the courts to get her son released from jail. Hence, it is requested by learned advocate for the applicant to allow this application by quashing and setting aside the judgment and order dated 02.08.2021c passed by the learned Family Court, Vadodara in Criminal Misc. Application No. 408 of 2019.

5. Learned advocate Mr.Nisarg Jain for respondents-wife has objected to this application and submitted that the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Family Court, Vadodara is not proper and this Court may enhance the maintenance amount granted vide the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Family Court. It is further submitted that the learned Family Court has erred in granti