Ashutosh Rajput | Hidayatullah National Law University | 19th May 2020<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Savitaben Somabhai Bhatiya vs State of Gujrat & Ors. [Criminal Appeal 399 of 2005 arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 4688 of 2004)]<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Facts:<\/u>\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The appellant was married to the respondent no. 2 in 1994. Respondent no. 2 at a later point of time started treating her ill and also tortured her. A child was born through the appellant. Subsequently, the appellant came to know that he has an illicit relationship with one Veenaben. The appellant was living separately and filed an application under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) so as to claim maintenance, as the respondent no. 2 neglected the appellant. Later the appellant filed the application before Judicial Magistrate first class (JMFC) wherein the respondent no. 2 contended that the appellant was not legally married wife and the child born (respondent no. 3) was not his son and Veenaben had married to him before 22 years. The JMFC allowed the petition and granted maintenance. Respondent no.2 then filed a criminal revision before the learned Additional Sessions Judge which set aside the order passed by JMFC and subsequently by another order, the learned JMFC ordered to award maintenance to both the appellant and the child. Again Criminal Revision Application was filed by the respondent no.2 against the later order of JMFC therefore, Additional District Judge dismissed the application so he filed for Special Criminal Application before the Gujrat High Court and the maintenance awarded to the child was increased from 350\/- to 500\/-. Hence, the appellant filled for the appeal.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Issue:<\/u><\/strong>\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n Arguments by the parties:<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Arguments by the appellant:\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n Arguments by the respondent:\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n Judgment:<\/u><\/strong>\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n The expression \u2018wife\u2019 should be a legally wedded wife as per section 125 of CrPC and marriage of women in accordance with the Hindu rites with a man is complete nullity in the eyes of law as per Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and its position is unclear with respect to section 125 of CrPC and if granted maintenance it would defeat the provisions of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 hence, the scope of section 125 of CrPC is clear to legally wedded wife.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n The quantum of maintenance will be increased from rupees 500\/- to 850\/- as after the amendment of 2001 in the Civil Procedure Code, there is no limitation with respect to quantum of maintenance. Hence the appeal is disposed of. <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Ashutosh Rajput | Hidayatullah National Law University | 19th May 2020 Savitaben Somabhai Bhatiya vs State of Gujrat & Ors. [Criminal Appeal 399 of 2005 arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 4688 of 2004)] Facts:\u00a0 The appellant was married to the respondent no. 2 in 1994. Respondent no. 2 at a later point of time […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":167,"featured_media":1664,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[69,85,26],"tags":[],"yoast_head":"\n