The Family Court can dismiss applications for maintenance if the applicant is found to be intentionally avoiding payment and evading warrants issued by the court.

1. As the common question is involved in all three applications, these three applications are decided by a common judgment.

2. Present applicant has prayed to quash and set aside the judgment and order dated 30.01.2018 passed by the learned Family Court, Ahmedabad in Criminal Misc. Application No.2726 of 2012, Criminal Misc. Application No.2771 of 2013 and Criminal Misc. Application No.246 of 2016.

3. Heard learned advocate appearing for the applicant, learned advocate appearing for the respondent No.1 and learned APP appearing for the respondent - State.

4. In all these applications, learned advocate appearing for the applicant submits that impugned order directing to punish the present applicant is clearly against the principles of nature justice. That learned Family Court has observed in the order that applicant and his family members were intentionally tried to avoid the execution of warrant, which was contrary to the provisions of Criminal Procedure Code . Such a presumption cannot be made by the court below. It is further submitted that observation of the learned Family Court that applicant was trying to evade the service of notice / warrant is without referring to the dated on which notice / warrant was issued and was / were tried to be served. That learned Family Court has wrongly observed that applicant has waived his rights of hearing. That sentence recorded by learned Family Court is contrary to the provisions of law, facts and evidence adduced in the case. It is further submitted that applicant has liability of his family and unable to pay the amount of maintenance as prayed by the respondent - wife, which fact is not considered by learned Family Court.
4.1 Referring S.9 of the Family Court, 1984 learned advocate appearing for the applicant submits that in every proceedings, the family court is duty bound at in the first instance to assist the persuade the parties in arriving at the statement in respect of the subject - matter of the suit or proceedings. That learned Family Court is failed to comply with the provision i.e. S.9 of the Act. Referring S.125 (3) of the Criminal Procedure Code , learned advocate has further submitted that only after execution of the warrant, order of imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month or until payment if sooner can be passed by the Court. It is further submitted that indisputedly warrant was not served to the present appellant and however, impugned order was passed. Hence, it was requested by learned advocate appearing for the applicant to quash and set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 30.01.2018 passed by the learned Family Court, Ahmedabad in Criminal Misc. Application No.2726 of 2012, Criminal Misc. Application No.2771 of 2013 and Criminal Misc. Application No.246 of 2016.
4.2 Learned advocate appearing for the applicant has further submitted that he has to rely upon the certain judgments, which are lying in his chamber situated at High Court complex, and therefore, this Court may not pass the final order by making signature so that the applicant can produce the judgments, which are relied upon by him. He has relied the judgment and order dated 02.09.2011 of this Court passed in Criminal Revision Application No.367 of 2007.

5. Per contra, leaned advocate appearing for the respondent No.1 - wife supported the findings and reasoning arrived at by learned Family Court while passing the order and submitted that in an application under S.125(3) of Cr.P.C. preferred by the respondent herein, applicant - husband was trying to avoid the execution of the warrant issued by the court, which is rightly observed by the court below. That the application for recovery of maintenance amount was preferred before long