JUDGMENT :

HASMUKH D. SUTHAR, J.

RULE. Learned APP Mr. Rohan Raval and learned advocate Mr. Darshit Brahmbhatt waive service of notice of Rule for and on behalf of respective respondents. With the consent of learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, present application is taken up for final hearing today.

[1.0] Present criminal revision application under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “CrPC”) has been preferred by the applicant herein – husband requesting to quash and set aside the order dated 10.12.2021 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Anand in Criminal Misc. Application No.81 of 2019, whereby the applicant is directed to pay Rs.50,000/ per month towards monthly maintenance to respondent No.2 from the date of application i.e. 12.03.2019. 

[2.0] The brief facts of the case of the applicant are as follows:

[2.1] The respondent No.2 – wife filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “CrPC”), contending that her marriage with the applicant was solemnized on 01.06.1995 at Gondal. Post marriage, both parties resided together in a rented premises at Vidhyanagar and the respondent No.2 also assisted the applicant in his business. Out of the wedlock, a male child, namely Aditya, was born on 03.08.1999. It is further contended that the parties jointly acquired immovable property at Shanti Devasiya Bungalows in the year 2016. However, matrimonial relations between the parties became strained over the past decade, and they have not been on speaking terms for the last five years. Allegations of mental and physical harassment have also been made by the respondent No.2. The respondent No.2 has further stated that a mortgage deed dated 21.08.2012 (No. 7226 of 2012) was executed with HDFC Bank in respect of joint property, and a similar document was executed on 26.09.2017. It is also alleged that eight cheques of Rs.15 lakhs each, issued by Canon Company, were found in the possession of the applicant at the matrimonial home. Due to the applicant’s failure to provide regular financial support for day-to-day expenses, the respondent No.2 filed the present application under Section 125 CrPC  on 12.03.2019 before the Family Court, Anand. During the pendency of the proceedings, an application for interim maintenance (Exh.6) was filed in Criminal Misc. Application No. 81 of 2019. The applicant appeared and filed written objections (Exh.10). The Family Court, by order on the interim application, directed the applicant to pay Rs.15,000/- per month as interim maintenance from the date of application. The said order was challenged by the applicant before the Hon’ble High Court by way of Special Criminal Application No. 7239 of 2019, wherein notice was issued and interim stay was granted. The petition was subsequently disposed of. Thereafter, the main proceedings were heard on merits. Both documentary evidence and written submissions were placed on record. Evidence on record indicates that the respondent No.2 resided with the applicant in the same house until 10.12.2019. An Income Tax Officer, Ms. Jyotiben Rathod, was also examined as PW-2 (Exh.29). Upon conclusion of the proceedings, the Learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Anand, by order dated 10.12.2021 in Criminal Misc. Application No. 81 of 2019, directed the applicant to pay Rs.50,000/- per month towards maintenance to respondent No.2 from the date of application i.e. 12.03.2019. Hence, present revision application is filed.

[3.0] Learned Advocate Mr. Ashish M. Dagli appearing for the applicant has submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is unjust, improper and contrary to the settled principles of law, as the Court below has failed to consider and properly appreciate the oral as well as documentary evidence on record and has proceeded mainly on assumptions and presumptions. He has further submitted that the Court has overl