CRA/39/2007 1/4 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION No. 39 of 2007 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT ========================================= = 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ========================================= = HARIPRASAD HARSUKHRAM PANDYA - Petitioner Versus KALPANA HARIPRASAD PANDYA – Respondent ========================================= = Appearance : MR NV ANJARIA for Petitioner : 1, MR NALIN K THAKKER for Respondent : 1, ========================================= = CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT Date : 20/02/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This Revision Application is filed by the husband, who is CRA/39/2007 2/4 JUDGMENT petitioner in HMP No. 39 of 2003 challenging the order dated 3.2.2007 passed by 5th Additional Senior Civil Judge & Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhuj at Kutchh below application made under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, whereby, the Court partly allowed the application and awarded interim maintenance of Rs.2000/- p.m. from the date of the order and Rs.5000/- lump sum for expenses. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said order, the husband has preferred this Civil Revision Application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 3. Shri Anjaria, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the concerned court ought to have appreciated in its true prospective the fact that the applicant wife has two leases of bentonite running in her name out of which a royalty of Rs.75,000/- per annum was being paid which would lead to the inference that she has sizable earnings out of the same. The letter to this effect issued by the concerned Geologist, Kutchh is placed on record which was also there before the lower Court. He submits that under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, the Court was under an obligation to take into consideration such material, which indicates that the applicant wife was in fact earning an amount for supporting herself and daughter. 4. Shri Thakkar for the respondent wife submitted that revisionist applicant – husband is having a business of manufacturing engineering goods like tractor-trolley and his income is far more than what is urged. The amount CRA/39/2007 3/4 JUDGMENT awarded is very negligible. Moreover, this being an interim order, this Court may also take into consideration that the trial Court has observed that quarry in question were leased in the name of wife and it was held by joint family and the letter produced on record dated 11.1.2005 indicates that the quantum of royalty was of earlier date. 5. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the relevant papers attached with this Revision Application. The fact remains to be noted that the trial Court has awarded only Rs.2000/- per month as interim maintenance in respect of wife as well as daughter, who is prosecuting her studies. In these days of galloping inflation and hardship, an amount of Rs.2000/- p.m can surely be said to be insufficient for survival of two persons. It indicates that the same is only awarded as an amount to be used as an additional amount, which wife might be getting from quarry and the Court need not opine on the aspect at this stage as issue is at large before the Court. Suffice it to say that amount of Rs.2000/- p.m. awarded by way of maintenance in respect of wife and daughter appears to be absolutely just and proper and does not call for any interference of this Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The revision application therefore, fails and is accordingly dismissed. The amount, which is not paid to the wife towards maintenance shall be paid within one month from today. Rule discharged. Interim relief stands vacated. No costs. CRA/39/2007 4/4 JUDGMENT (S.R.BRAHMBHATT, J.) pallav