IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION No 15 of 2001 For Approval and Signature: Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE C.K.BUCH ============================================================ 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed : YES to see the judgements? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? : NO 3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : NO of the judgement? 4. Whether this case involves a substantial question : NO of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 of any Order made thereunder? 5. Whether it is to be circulated to the Civil Judge? : NO -------------------------------------------------------------- KAMLESHKUMAR CHHANABHAI THAKOR Versus SANGITABEEN KAMLESHKUMAR THAKOR -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: 1. Criminal Revision Application No. 15 of 2001 MS NISHA PARIKH for Petitioner No. 1 MS FARHANA Y MANSURI for Respondent No. 1 RULE SERVED for Respondent No. 1 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for Respondent No. 2 -------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : MR.JUSTICE C.K.BUCH Date of decision: 16/03/2002 ORAL JUDGEMENT Heard learned counsel Ms. Nisha Parikh for the petitioner. Learned counsel has taken me through the contentions raised by the petitioner and the order of maintenance granted by the Family Court (Court no. 1, Principal Judge), Ahmedabad. After going through the entire judgment, learned counsel has fairly submitted that the reasonings developed and assigned by the learned Judge so far as entitlement of maintenance is concerned, cannot be said to be illegal or perverse. However, the petitioner has a good case so far as quantum of amount of maintenance granted by the Family Court. According to her, the maximum amount of Rs. 500/ ought not to have been awarded as the present petitioner has filed a Civil Suit for restitution of conjugal rights under sec. 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act and the same is pending. It is submitted that the amount of interim alimony which is paid to the respondent-wife ought to have been considered by the Family Court, but on careful reading, it transpires that nothing specific was brought before the Family Court that particular amount has been awarded by way of interim alimony in the civil proceedings initiated by the present petitioner and the same are being paid regularly. At the time of grant of amount of permanent alimony and while deciding the matrimonial dispute by the civil court, the amount of maintenance awarded and paid in the criminal proceedings, namely under sec. 125 of CrPC can be looked into. The petitioner is at liberty to point out this aspect to the civil court as and when he asks to pay the amount by way of permanent alimony in the matter of matrimonial proceedings. Considering the hard days and the inflation in the market, amount of Rs. 500/ cannot be said to be amount excessive considering the financial and social status of the present petitioner and, therefore, I am not inclined to interfere with the amount awarded to the respondent - wife by way of maintenance i.e. Rs. 500/ p.m. The amount of costs is also minimum. For short, there is no merits in this revision application and the same is dismissed. Rule is discharged with no order as to costs. (C.K. BUCH, J.) mandora/