Partly allowed

Mehul Haribhai Nandha v. State of Gujarat

Gujarat HC8 Sept 2014CR.RA/491/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the Criminal Revision Application, quashing and setting aside the direction in the impugned interim order to hand over Streedhan properties to the wife, as the trial court failed to scrutinize a receipt evidencing the items were already accepted. The remainder of the order remains in force.

What did the court decide?

Direction No. 2 in the order dated 12.06.2013 directing the handover of Streedhan properties is quashed and set aside; the rest of the order remains in force.

Mehul Haribhai Nandha Vs State of Gujarat — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Gujarat HC (2014)

¶1

R/CR.RA/491/2013 CAV JUDGMENT

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

¶3

CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (AGAINST ORDER PASSED BY SUBORDINATE COURT) NO. 491 of 2013 With CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 6956 of 2014 In CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 491 of 2013

¶4

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

¶5

HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.G.SHAH

¶6

Sd/-

¶7

=================================================

¶8

1	Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?	No
2	To be referred to the Reporter or not ?	No
3	Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?	No
4	Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ?	No
5	Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?	No

¶9

================================================= MEHUL HARIBHAI NANDHA....Applicant(s)

¶10

Versus

¶11

STATE OF GUJARAT & 1....Respondent(s)

¶12

=================================================

¶13

Appearance :

¶14

MR NIRAD D. BUCH, ADVOCATE for the Applicant MR PREMAL S RACHH, ADVOCATE for the Respondent No. 2 MS.JIRGA JHAVERI, APP for the Respondent No. 1

¶15

=================================================

¶16

CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.G.SHAH

¶17

Date :08/09/2014

¶18

CAV JUDGMENT

¶19

Applicant is husband whereas respondent No.2 is wife-original complainant before the Chief Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jamnagar in Criminal Misc.Application No. 1024 of 2012 under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short “the Act”) for maintenance, protection and for getting residential accommodation

¶20

Page 1 of 5

¶21

R/CR.RA/491/2013 CAV JUDGMENT

¶22

as well as Streedhan properties. Such application was filed on 08.10.2012. On the same day respondent-wife has also filed one complaint before Mahila Police Station, Jamnagar, which is registered as C.R.No.I-31 of 2012 for cheating and cruelty etc. under Sections 498A, 406, 420, 323, 504, 506(2) and 114 of Indian Penal Code against husband and in-laws. More or less allegations in both of them i.e. application under the Act and Police complaint are almost similar. At present this Court is concerned with the impugned judgment and order dated 12.06.2013 passed below Exh.6 in Criminal Misc. Application No. 1024 of 2012, whereby the petitioner was directed to handover the Streedhan properties to the respondent-wife and to pay him Rs.2,000/- per month towards maintenance from the date of application, which order was confirmed on 23.07.2013 by learned 3^rd Additional Sessions Judge, Jamnagar in Criminal Appeal No.41 of 2013. Petitioner-husband has challenged both the orders but his main grievance is against the direction No.2 in the order dated 12.06.2013, whereby the trial Court has directed the Protection Officer to handover Streedhan properties as per list submitted by the wife and such order was confirmed by the Appellant Court. Thereby, though entire order is challenged practically grievance of the petitioner is towards order regarding handing over the Streedhan properties from him to wife.

¶23

Even otherwise since the revision is against interim order, it would not be appropriate at this stage to discuss the factual details

¶24

Page 2 of 5

¶25

R/CR.RA/491/2013 CAV JUDGMENT

¶26

and to arrive at specific conclusion based upon such factual details since it would otherwise prejudice the trial.

¶27

However, the basic issue raised by the petitioner is relevant inasmuch as after Court's direction, by an additional affidavit dated 19.12.2013, petitioner-husband is now producing on record a certified copy of Exh.26 , which is a list of 10 documents produced by the husband before the trial Court in such Criminal Misc. Application No.1024 of 2012. In addition to treatment papers of the wife, at serial No.10 of such document list at Exh.26 before the trial court, petitioner-husband has produced a writing on stamp paper stating it as a receipt of accepting Streedhan properties by the wife on 10.10.2012 i.e. after filing of complaint and application under the Act as above. Petitioner has also produced copy of such receipt of stamp paper at Exh.D with the main revision with its typed copy at page Nos. 43 and 44. On bare perusal of such documents, it becomes clear that on Rs.100/- stamp paper, respondent-wife has categorically endorsed that she has received the Streedhan properties as listed therein in presence of her mother Varshaben Batukbhai Bagiya and her maternal uncle i.e. brother of her mother (mama) Ajaybhai Pal with gifts received by her from her husband-present petitioner at the time of marriage as listed in such appeal, which is almost 50 in numbers and including almost everything like mattress, pillow, blanket, suitcase, sofa-covers, carpets, sweaters, purse, valuable articles, photos, statues, sawl, watch, saris, washing machine, DVD,

¶28

Page 3 of 5

¶29

R/CR.RA/491/2013 CAV JUDGMENT

¶30

table, chairs, dinner sets, sandwich machine, mixture, night lamp, household articles, steel box, dresses, diamond bulky, diamond neckless, diamond bangles, night suits, cosmetic makeup materials, in addition to golden-sets, neckless earing, rings and chain having 39.100 gm. with silver ornaments and one Sonata watch.

¶31

Therefore, it is submitted by the petitioner that unfortunately though such documents are on record, the trial Court has failed and even did not bother to refer the record properly before passing the direction to the Protection Officer to handover the Streedhan properties to wife from him and unfortunately the Appellant Court has also, at the time of disposing of the appeal, has not referred such document.

¶32

Therefore, so far as direction regarding Streedhan is concerned, there is certainly substance, in the submission by the petitionerhusband, though order of interim maintenance cannot be interfered at present.

¶33

It is surprising to note that both the trial Court and the First Appellant Court has grossly failed to even look into such documents and if at all they cannot be relied upon, to make a statement in the judgment that why they are not relying upon such documents. It is also obvious that even after production of such documents on record respondent-wife could not challenge or object the contents of such documents in any manner. Therefore, the impugned order cannot

¶34

Page 4 of 5

¶35

R/CR.RA/491/2013 CAV JUDGMENT

¶36

sustain so far as such directions are concerned.

¶37

Considering the contents of the documents and list of the items as handed over by the petitioner - husband to the wife, though it is not stated in the documents that it is full and final list, it seems that practically nothing has been left to be handed over. However, it may be clear only if proper evidence is adduced by both the sides.

¶38

In any case, at present direction regarding Streedhan properties under impugned order is certainly unwarranted and, therefore, Revision Application is partly allowed. Therefore, direction No.2 in order dated 12.06.2013 below Exh.6 in such Criminal Misc. Application No. 1024 of 2012 and confirmed in order by 3^rd Additional Sessions Judge, Jamnagar in Criminal Appeal No.41 of 2013 by judgment and order dated 23.07.2013, are hereby quashed and set aside. Rest of the directions and impugned order shall remain inforce. Revision Application is partly allowed to the aforesaid extent. Rule is made absolute accordingly.

¶39

In view of the above order, the Criminal Misc. Application does not survive and disposed of accordingly.

¶40

Sd/- (S.G.SHAH, J.)

¶41

dharmendra

¶42

Page 5 of 5

Mehul Haribhai Nandha v. State of Gujarat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mehul Haribhai Nandha v. State of Gujarat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shobhaben Wd/O Dilipbhai Patil Vs State of Gujarat

Devendrasinh Ramfulsinh Parihar Vs Commissioner of Police

Madhusudan Maleshyam Vadnal Vs Commissioner of Police

Hiteshbhai Mukundbhai Lakhani Vs State of Gujarat

Dilipbhai Jivabhai Katariya Vs State of Gujarat

Shri Bhavnagar Panjrapole Thro' Manager Brijesh Himatlal Shah Vs State of Gujarat