IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (QUASHING) NO. 581 of 2014 With CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2014 In R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 581 of 2014 With CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING OF ORDER/STAY) NO.

1 of 2023 In R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 581 of 2014 ==========================================================

ASHOKKUMAR GHANSHYAMBHAI ACHARYA Versus NAYNABEN ASHOKKUMAR ACHARYA & ANR.

==========================================================

Appearance:

MR TEJAS P SATTA(3149) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR ABHIRAJ R TRIVEDI(5576) for the Respondent(s) No. 1 MR. CHINTAN DAVE ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s)

No. 2 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI Date : 13/08/2025

ORAL ORDER

Heard learned advocate Mr. Tejas P. Satta for the petitioner, learned advocate Mr. Abhiraj Trivedi for the respondent No.1 and learned APP Mr. Chintan Dave for the respondent State.

1. This petition is filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code challenges the order passed in Criminal Misc. Application No. 2865 of 2010 by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Vadodara whereby in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 127 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the learned Family Court enhanced the amount of maintenance from Rs. 400/- to Rs. 8000/- to be paid from the date of the petition i.e 11.2.2010.

1.1 The brief facts of the case are as under :

1.2 The petitioner is residing at Vadgam, Tal Khamblist, District Anand. The respondent no.1 has filed one Criminal Misc. Application No.2865/2010 (Old No. 93/2010), under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code against the petitioner.

1.3. The petitioner states that the marriage between the petitioner and respondent no.1 has been solemnized before 15 years and they have one daughter namely Heena aged about

17 years out of their marriage life.

1.4 The petitioner states that as per the case of the respondent no.1, she was deserted by the petitioner but, in fact, it was not so. She herself left the company of the petitioner of her own and residing separately the J.M.F.C, Vadodara has ordered for the custody of the daughter "Heena" to the respondent No.1 without properly considering the facts with regard to the order of this Hon'ble High Court.

1.5. The petitioner states that the Family Court did not consider the fact that there is no other source of income except the agricultural land with the petitioner and the said land is ancestral land of the petitioner and that to is of non-irrigated land. The petitioner, therefore, most of the period of the year, doing labour works in the agricultural land of others and from that, earning his livelihood which is at the most Rs.2500/- per month.

1.6 The petitioner states that the respondent no.1 did not produce a single evidence of income of the present petitioner and on the contrary, illegally has taken custody of the petitioner though the order is in favour of the petitioner. In spite of such fact only on the basis of assumption, the application under Section 127 allowed and the amount of maintenance was unreasonably increased to the extent of Rs.7600/-.

1.7 The petitioner states that the Family Court did not consider the fact that the petitioner is ready and willing to reside with the respondent no.1 and even, he is ready to keep the daughter of the petitioner with him for whom the respondent no.1 wrongly taken custody by suppressing material fact.

1.8 The petitioner states he had never denied maintaining respondent no. 1 at any point of time or neglected her or deserted her. But, she refused to live with the petitioner without sufficient cause which is clearly transpired from the documents produced on record and also from the depositions of the witnesses.

1.9 The petitioner states that the Hon'ble Family Court did not consider the aforementioned facts and even not properly appreciate the written arguments advanced before the Hon'ble Fam