AMRITLAL BABUBHAI SADARIYA Vs. GITABEN RANCHHODBHAI PATEL
LAWS(GJH)-1983-11-16
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
Decided on November 29,1983

AMRITLAL BABUBHAI SADARIYA Appellant
VERSUS
GITABEN RANCHHODBHAI PATEL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

M.B.Shah. J. - (1.) Rule Mr. S.J. Joshi, waives notice for opponent No.1 Mr. K.J. Vaidya, Public Prosecutor, waives notice for opponent No.2.
(2.) Opponent No.1 Gitaben Ranchhodbhai Patel had filed Miscellaneous Criminal Application No. 331 of i982 in Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajkot, for maintenance under section 125 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate by the Judgment and order dated 30th October, 1982 fixed the maintenance of the opponent No. I at the rate 0: Rs. 400 per month from 30th January 1982. He also awarded the expenses of Rs. 75 to the opponent No.1. Against the said judgment and order the husband-petitioner has filed the aforesaid revision application before this Court.
(3.) At the time of admission of this revision application the petitioner had filed an application for condonation of delay in the filing of the aforesaid revision application On that application the Court had issued notice to the other side i. e. opponent No.1. The delay was condoned and thereafter the matter was placed for admission hearing. At that time it was suggested to the learned Advocate for the petitioner that looking to the facts and circumstances of the case it would be worth while to settle the entire dispute between the parties. The learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the opponent No.1 submitted that the petitioner was not banding over the custody of minor child named Yogesh aged about 21 years and that his client was prepared to settle the whole dispute if the cllstody of the child is handed over to opponent No. 1 The learned. Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner fairly tried to settle the dispute and with his active assistance he has virtually settled the dispute between the parties. Thereafter the matter was adjourned from time to time and subsequently to 22nd November 1983, the petitioners father who was present before the Court, agreed to handover the custody of the minor child to opponent No.1 for the welfare of the minor child-and requested the Court that they would handover the custody of the child to-day and hence the matter was adjourned. Today the petitioner, his mother and other relatives are present before the Court. They submitted that they are ready and willing to handover the custody of the minor child to opponent No.1 with a condition that opponent no. 1 shall maintain the child properly and that the petitioner's parents and brother would be permitted to see the child whenever they desire. The learned advocate appearing on behalf of opponent no. 1 fairly agreed that without any hindrance the petitioner's parents and his brother would be permitted to see or meet the child but they should intimate the opponent No. I in advance. The opponent No. I shall the an undertaking to that effect before this Court on or before 2nd December, 1983. Whenever the child is at Ahmedabad, the petitioner's parents or his brother would be permitted to see the child without any intimation to the opponent No. 1 In any event, if the opponent No.1 remarries, then the opponent No.1 agrees and undertakes to this court that the custody of the minor child will be handed over to the petitioner and/or his parents if they are willing to take the custody of the child.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.