Geeta Patel W/O Jayantilal Patel And Anr vs. Jayantilal Patel S/O Kishore Patel

Held

The High Court held that the impugned order of the Trial Court did not suffer from perversity or illegality. The Court noted that Petitioner No.1 admitted in her evidence that her father had ousted the respondent from the garlic business, and the respondent was now doing coolie work. She also admitted to running a beauty parlour named 'Geeta Beauty Parlor' for five to six years, set up with the respondent's help, and earning Rs. 20,000/- to Rs. 25,000/- per month. Given that Petitioner No.1 was earning and capable of earning her livelihood, and the respondent was only doing coolie work, the Court found the awarded maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- (Rs. 3,000/- to Petitioner No.1 and Rs. 2,000/- to Petitioner No.2) to be reasonable. The Court dismissed the petition. The Court also noted the petitioner's submission that the respondent had not paid the maintenance ordered by the Trial Court, and the respondent's counsel undertook to deposit the arrears within four weeks, failing which the Trial Court would deal with the matter expeditiously.

Facts

The petitioners, Smt. Geeta Patel and her minor daughter Hiya, filed a petition under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. seeking monthly maintenance from the respondent, Jayantilal Patel. They contended that the respondent, a wholesale garlic businessman allegedly earning Rs. 30,00,000/- per annum, had neglected to maintain them. The petitioners claimed Rs. 30,000/- per month. The respondent admitted the relationship but denied the income and other allegations, stating he earned only Rs. 1,00,000/- to Rs. 1,20,000/- per annum and that petitioner No.1 ran a beauty parlour. The Trial Court awarded Rs. 3,000/- to petitioner No.1 and Rs. 2,000/- to petitioner No.2. The petitioners appealed this order before the High Court, seeking modification to grant the claimed maintenance.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order passed by the Trial Court suffers from any perversity or illegality and calls for interference by this Court? Petitioner's arguments: The respondent is a wholesale garlic businessman paying GST and earning a huge income. The Trial Court failed to consider these facts and awarded insufficient maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- to both petitioners. The petitioners prayed for a reasonable enhancement of maintenance. Respondent's arguments: The respondent is engaged in coolie work and has no other avocation. Petitioner No.1 runs a beauty parlour and earns a decent income. The Trial Court rightly passed a partial order awarding maintenance of Rs. 5,000/-, and there is no reason to interfere with it. The respondent prayed for dismissal of the petition.