TAMIZ YAKUBBHAI SHEIKH Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
Tamiz Yakubbhai Sheikh
STATE OF GUJARAT
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) Heard learned advocate Ms. Dimple Thaker, appearing for the applicant, whereas, Mr. Manan Mehta, learned APP for the State, which
is a formal party and learned advocate Mr. Rathin P. Raval, appearing for opponents Nos.2 and 3.
(2.) The applicant herein is husband, whereas opponent no.2 is his wife and opponent no.3 is their daughter. The opponent - wife and minor daughter have preferred Criminal Misc.
Application No. 775 of 2013 before the learned Family Court at Rajkot seeking maintenance
from the present applicant under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. By judgment
and order dated 30.06.2015, the learned Family Court has directed the applicant to
pay an amount of Rs.40,000/ - per month towards maintenance of wife and Rs.30,000/ - per
month towards maintenance of minor daughter from the date of divorce i.e. 10.03.2012.
While awarding maintenance as above, the
Family Court has also directed the applicant to purchase 3 BHK flat
(Three Bedroom, Hall, Kitchen) in the name of opponent No.2 within the
radius of 1 Km. from the flat where the applicant is residing and to execute a registered sale
deed in the name of wife and also to pay Rs.25,000/ - towards litigation expenses and
Rs.1,00,000/ - towards exemplary cost. The applicant has challenged the said order by filing
Criminal Revision Application No.768 of 2015 on 16.12.2015 and thereby considering the
date of the order being 30.06.2015, there is
delay of 66 days in filing such revision application. 2.1. Therefore, the applicant has also filed captioned Criminal Misc.
Application for condonation of delay so as to condone the delay of 66 days in filing the main
revision application challenging the order of maintenance as aforesaid.
(3.) Considering the rival submissions and so also the facts and circumstances emerging from the record, it seems that the matter is to
be remanded to the learned Family Court for deciding it afresh on its own merits after giving
reasonable opportunity to both the sides to
prove their respective case. Both the parties have agreed to hear and decide the revision
application also along with the application for
condonation of delay. There is a reason to do so because, the learned
Family Court has probably exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure while allowing application for
maintenance by granting the relief for separate residence and with a direction to the present
applicant to purchase 3 BHK flat (Three Bedroom, Hall and Kitchen)
in the name of opponent no. 2 - wife and
within the radius of 1 km., from the flat where the applicant is residing
and to execute a registered sale deed in the name of wife. 3.1.
Therefore, both the parties have argued at length on merits of the main application also
In view of the above facts, practically Criminal
Misc. Application No. 24910 of 2015 seeking condonation of delay of 66
days in filing Criminal Revision Application No. 768 of 2915 is allowed,
because sufficient cause is shown to condone the delay in filing such
revision application in prescribed period of limitation.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.