SCR.A/1587/2007 1/8 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 1587 of 2007 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH ========================================================= 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? ========================================================= USHABEN GOVINDBHAI PARMAR - Applicant(s) Versus RAMESHBHAI MAFATLAL SENMA & 1 - Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR PINAKIN M RAVAL for Applicant(s) : 1, None for Respondent(s) : 1, MR KT DAVE, ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for Respondent(s) : 2, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH Date : 10/09/2007 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner – original applicant has prayed for an appropriate order SCR.A/1587/2007 2/8 JUDGMENT quashing and setting aside the order dated 27.04.2007 passed by the learned Revisional Court i.e. Sessions Judge, Gandhinagar in Criminal Revision Application No. 21 of 2007 in allowing the said Revision Application by quashing and setting aside the order dated 04.01.2007 passed by the learned J.M.F.C., Kalol in Criminal Misc. Application No. 11 of 2005. 2. The petitioner herein – original complainant submitted an application under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code in the Court of learned J.M.F.C., Kalol being Criminal Misc. Application No. 11 of 2005 for getting maintenance from respondent No.1 – husband. Learned J.M.F.C., Kalol vide judgment and order dated 04.01.2007 partly allowed the said application directing respondent No.1 to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.1200/- per month to the petitioner from the date of the application. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order dated 04.01.2007 passed by the learned J.M.F.C., Kalol in Criminal Misc. Application No.11 of 2005, respondent No.1 – husband preferred Criminal Revision Application No. 21 of 2007 in the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Gandhinagar. That the learned SCR.A/1587/2007 3/8 JUDGMENT Sessions Judge, Gandhinagar vide judgment and order dated 27.04.2007 allowed the said Revision application by quashing and setting aside the order dated 04.01.2007 passed by the learned J.M.F.C., Kalol awarding maintenance to the petitioner herein. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order dated 27.04.2007 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Gandhinagar in Criminal Revision Application No.21 of 2007, the petitioner – original applicant has preferred the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. Mr.Raval, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner – original applicant has vehemently submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case the Revisional Court has materially erred in allowing the Revision Application and quashing the order passed by the learned J.M.F.C., Kalol awarding maintenance to the petitioner. He has further submitted that Revisional Court has erred in coming to the conclusion that the application for maintenance has been filed after a period of seven years. That the Revisional Court has further erred in coming to the conclusion that it is SCR.A/1587/2007 4/8 JUDGMENT the petitioner who has deserted the husband, and is not ready and willing to stay with the husband without justifiable reason. He has further submitted that infact the petitioner wife waited for some time to get fruitful result and some amicable way would come out and hence, the application for maintenance was preferred late and therefore, the application of the petitioner for maintenance could not have been dismissed on the ground of delay. It is further submitted by him that the learned Revisional Court has materially erred in coming to the conclusion that it appears from the record that there was no demand for dowry from petitioner's mother-in-law. That she was ill-treated and tortured by the husband cannot be accepted as concrete evidence. Therefore, it is requested to allow the present petition by quashing and setting aside the judgment and order passed by the learned Revisional Court. 4. On the other hand, Mr.K.T.Dave, learned Additional Public Prosecutor while opposing the present petition has submitted that it is finding of fact on appreciation of evidence given by the learned Revisional Court that it is the petitioner who has SCR.A/1587/2007 5/8 JUDGMENT deserted the husband without any justifiable reason and more particularly when the petitioner has stayed at in-laws with the husband only for a period of three days and that too in the year 1993. However, the application for maintenance has been filed in the year 2005 after a period of almost twelve years. Therefore, the learned Revisional Court has rightly quashed and set aside the order passed by the learned J.M.F.C., Kalol. It is also further submitted that even otherwise this petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and; that there is no jurisdictional error much less than law has been committed by the learned Revisional Court which calls for interference of this Court in exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, it is requested to dismiss the present petition. 5. Heard the learned Advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties. 6. At the outset it is required to be noted that marriage between the petitioner and respondent No.1 was solemnized in the year 1993 and; that the SCR.A/1587/2007 6/8 JUDGMENT petitioner had stayed with the husband only for a period of three days in the year 1993. It appears that thereafter the application for divorce was submitted by the petitioner in the year 2002 i.e. after a period of nine years. The said application was dismissed on merits and the application of the petitioner for divorce has been rejected. It is also required to be noted that the application for maintenance for the first time came to be filed in the year 2005 i.e. after a period of almost twelve years. It appears that during the course of the proceedings respondent No.1 has tried his best to settle the dispute so that her marriage life can be saved. However, as observed by the learned Revisional Court she has not accepted any offer without any reasons. It is finding of fact given by the learned Revisional Court on appreciation of evidence that the applicant is not ready to live with the husband and no proper reason is given by her for refusing the offer to stay with the husband. It is further observed by the learned Revisional Court that there is no demand of dowry by her mother-in-law and/or that she was ill-treated and; that the petitioner has SCR.A/1587/2007 7/8 JUDGMENT failed to establish and substantiate the allegation of apprehension of danger to her life. It is also further held by the learned Revisional Court that refusal to accept the offer of her husband or desertion of company has not been justified. It is also further observed by the learned Revisional Court that there is no fault on the part of the husband as he has made his bonafide offer to call back her wife but without any reason the offer is not accepted. It is also required to be noted that the petitioner is M.A. & B.Ed. 7. Considering above and in the facts and circumstances of the case when the learned Revisional Court has allowed the Revision Application of the husband denying maintenance to the petitioner by quashing and setting aside the judgment passed by the learned J.M.F.C., Kalol, it cannot be said that the learned Revisional Court has committed any error which calls for interference of this Court in exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. There is no jurisdictional error much less than law shown to have been committed by the learned Revisional Court. The judgment and SCR.A/1587/2007 8/8 JUDGMENT order passed by the learned Revisional Court does not warrant any interference. Under the circumstances there is no substance in the petition, same deserves dismissal and accordingly it is dismissed. [M.R.Shah, J.] satish