SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 562 of 2022 ==========================================================

RAJESHBHAI RASIKBHAI VITTHALANI Versus STATE OF GUJARAT ==========================================================

Appearance:

MR VIJAY H NANGESH(3981) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 for the Respondent(s) No. 2 MR RONAK RAVAL, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM:H ONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI Date : 15/02/2022

ORAL ORDER

1. This petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as `the Code’) wherein the petitioner has prayed that the order dated 7.12.2021 passed by the Family Court at Rajkot below application Exh.42 filed in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.1204 of 2019 and Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.1248 of 2019 be quashed and set aside. The petitioner has also prayed that the concerned Court be directed to conduct the inquiry against respondent no.2 as per the provisions contained in Section 340 of the Code.

2. Heard learned advocate Mr.Nangesh for the petitioner and learned APP Mr.Raval for the respondent-state.

3. Learned advocate for the petitioner referred the averments made in the memo of the petition and thereafter contended that the respondent no.2 herein has filed Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.946 of 2014 against the petitioner under Section 125 of the Code. The concerned Family Court vide order dated 20.4.2018 partly allowed the said application whereby direction was given to the present petitioner- husband to pay Rs.12,000/- per month to the respondent no.2-wife from the date of filing of the application i.e. 21.11.2014, copy of the said order is placed on record at page no.23 of the compilation. It is submitted that the respondent-wife filed application against the said order for enhancement of the amount of maintenance and the present petitioner also filed application challenging the order dated 20.4.2018 passed by the concerned Family Court, before this Court. It is submitted that this Court vide order dated 9.10.2018, rejected the both the applications. Copy of the said order is placed on record at page no.56 of the compilation.

3.1 Learned advocate for the petitioner thereafter contended that the respondent no.2 has filed Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.1204 of 2019 under Section 127 of the Code for enhancement of the amount of maintenance before the concerned Family Court whereas the present petitioner has filed Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.1248 of 2019 for cancellation of the order dated 20.4.2018 passed by the Family Court on the ground of change of circumstances. At this stage, it is pointed out that during the course of hearing of the aforesaid applications, the deposition of the respondent no.2 was recorded. The affidavit filed by the respondent no.2-wife was also placed on record as per the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Learned advocate for the petitioner has referred the relevant documents which are placed on record and thereafter contended that as the respondent no.2- wife has given false evidence before the Family Court, the petitioner filed application under Section 340 of the Code before the concerned Family Court vide exh. 42 wherein the petitioner has pointed out the relevant aspects. Copy of the said application is placed on record at page no.78 of the compilation. It is submitted that the objections were raised by the respondent no.2 by submitting reply Exh.44, copy of the same is placed on record at page no.82 of the compilation. It is submitted that now the impugned order has been passed by the concerned Family Court on 7.12.2021 by which the application Exh.42 submitted by the petitioner has been dismissed and therefore the petitioner has filed the present petition.

3.2 Learned advocate for the petitioner has thereafter contended that the petitioner has pointed out in the application Exh.42 about the false evidence submitted by respondent no.2 before the Family Court. Inspite of that, the Family Court has rejected the application submitted by the petitioner. Learned advocate, therefore, urged that the impugned order be quashed and set aside and further direction be issued to the Family Court to allow the application filed by the petitioner under Section 340 of the Code.

On the other hand, learned APP has opposed this petition and referred the rele

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top