SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Alpaben W/O Sandipkumar Patel vs Sandip Anilkumar Patel on 24 December, 2019

C/SCA/1130/2018 ORDER

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1130 of 2018

ALPABEN W/O SANDIPKUMAR PATEL
Versus
SANDIP ANILKUMAR PATEL

Appearance:
MR DHRUV K DAVE(6928) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR. MAHITOSH U SINGH(7015) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MASUDIQBAL H RATHOD(7919) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR RJ GOSWAMI(1102) for the Respondent(s) No. 1

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.G.URAIZEE
Date : 24/12/2019
ORAL ORDER

1. Heard Mr. Dhruv K. Dave, learned advocate for the
petitioner and Mr. R.J. Goswami, learned advocate for the
respondent is absent.

2. The following substantive prayers are made in this
petition under SectionArticle 227 of the Constitution of India:-

“(B) This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to quash and set asdie
order dated 30/10/2017 passed below Exhibit 14 in FSUIT
1133 of 2015, this order passed by the Hon’ble Principal
Judge, Family Court, Ahmedabad.

(C) This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to order the respondent to
pay to the petitioner a sum of Rs.70,000/- per month to petitioner
and Rs.35,000/- per month each to the 2 minor children of present
petitioner and respondent, effective from date of filing of
FSUIT/1133/2015 and till final disposal of the
FSUIT/1133/2015 pending before the Hon’ble Principal Judge,
Family Court, Ahmedabad.

(D) This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to order the respondent to
make payment of premium of Insurance Policy held in name of
present petitioner/pay amount of premium to present petitioner,
pending proceedings of FSUIT/1133/2015 before the Hon’ble
Principal Judge, Family Court, Ahmedabad.

(E) This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to order respondent to pay to
petitioner sum of Rs.35,000/- as litigation costs.”

Page 1 of 3

Downloaded on : Thu Dec 26 20:33:07 IST 2019

C/SCA/1130/2018 ORDER

3. Mr. Dave, learned advocate for the petitioner submitted
that the respondent is an advocate by profession, and is earning
huge income. He submitted that he has visited U.S. on some
occasions in the past. According to his submission, two
children Mansavi, aged 17 years and Janis aged around 11
years are with the petitioner. He submits that daughter
Mansavi is pursuing Engineering Degree Course in L.D.

Engineering College, Ahmedabad and the son is studying in
school. He submits that the petitioner has to incur huge
expenses for the education of the children beside day to day
expenses for herself and the children. He submits that the
maintenance pendente lite granted by the trial Court is on the
lower side considering the status of the respondent. He,
therefore, submits that the trial Court ought to have granted
interim maintenance as prayed for by the applicant. He,
therefore submits that the petition requires consideration.

4. Mr. Nisar Chauhan, learned advocate for Mr. R.J.
Goswami, learned advocate for the respondent submits that the
Family Court has passed the impugned order on the basis of
material made available on the record. He submits that the
petitioner is residing in the house belonging the respondent
whereas the respondent leaves in a rented premises. He further
submitted that the higher education for girls is free in the state
and therefore the petitioner is not incur any expenses towards

Page 2 of 3

Downloaded on : Thu Dec 26 20:33:07 IST 2019
C/SCA/1130/2018 ORDER

the education of the daughter. He, therefore, submits that there
is merit in the petition.

5. It is not in dispute that the respondent is an advocate by
profession. It emerges from the impugned order that the
respondent has not disclosed his real income before the trial
Court, moreover, the trial Court has it appears, passed the
order without assigning the germen reasons and hence I am of
the view that the petition requires consideration.

6. Hence, Rule returnable on 16th January, 2020.

7. In the meantime, by way of interim relief, the
maintenance pendente lite granted by the trial Court is found
to be grossly inadequate, and therefore, the respondent is
directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month in place of
Rs.5000/- and Rs.5000/- each for the children in place of
Rs.2500/- each from the date of filing of this petition till final
disposal of this petition.

(A.G.URAIZEE, J)

Manoj

Page 3 of 3

Downloaded on : Thu Dec 26 20:33:07 IST 2019

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation