R/CR.RA/1194/2018 ORDER DATED: 21/07/2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (FOR MAINTENANCE) NO. 1194 of 2018 ========================================================== IMTIYAZ AHMED PIR MOHAMMED ANSARI Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS. ========================================================== Appearance: MR K I KAZI(5030) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 C J GOGDA(7488) for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3 MR RAJABHAI J GOGDA(3628) for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3 MS VRUNDA SHAH APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 VIKAS V NAIR(7444) for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI Date : 21/07/2025 ORAL ORDER 1. When the matter is called out, none remained present on behalf of the applicant. Heard learned advocate Mr. Vikas Nair for the respondent- wife. 2. Pursuant to the order dated 26.11.2019, the co-ordinate Bench of this Court has observed as under: “The applicant has challenged the impugned judgment and order dated 6.6.2018 passed in Criminal Misc. Application No. 1647 of 2014 by learned Principal Judge,Family Court No.1, Ahmedabad. Heard learned advocate for the applicant. Learned advocate for the applicant submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is contrary to the facts and record. That, evidence and circumstances of the applicant were not properly considered by the learned Family Court. That, the applicant is working as Junior Advocate and not earning sufficient income. That, Ld. Family Court has committed an error in considering the income of the present applicant at Rs.25,000/ to Rs.30,000/, however, there is no sufficient evidence on record. That, it is very difficult for the applicant to survive/maintain himself and his wife, bed ridden mother, son who is aged about 2 years in small income. He has produced statement R/CR.RA/1194/2018 ORDER DATED: 21/07/2025 showing payment of maintenance deposited by the present applicant. That, however the arrears amount of maintenance comes to Rs. 2,67,000/, the applicant is not in a position to pay any amount of maintenance before the trial Court on account of medical treatment of his mother. Learned Counsel for the respondent No.2 and 3 submits that before executing Court, the applicant is not remained present and not cooperating the Court's proceedings in execution petition i.e. recovery application preferred by the respondent No.2. That, however, summons issued to the applicant, he was not answered and thereafter, warrant was issued against the applicant. Issue requires consideration. Rule returnable on 24.12.2019. Ms. M.H.Bhatt, learned APP waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondent State. Mr. Vikas Nair, learned advocate waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondent Nos. 2 and 3. Considering the fact, learned Family Court/Executing Court would be free to proceed with the execution petition/recovery application preferred by the respondent No.2 without influence of the pendency of this Criminal Revision Application.” 3. Learned advocate Mr. Nair submitted that the impugned order came to be passed by the learned Family Court, Ahmedabad in Criminal Misc. Application No. 1647 of 2014 on 06.06.2018, however, the petitioner herein has failed and neglected to pay the maintenance amount including the arrears amount of Rs.2,67,000/-. It is further submitted by the learned advocate that considering the very maneuver on the part of petitioner, this Court even at the relevant point of time had not extended any protection. Nonetheless, liberty has been reserved in favour of respondent nos. 2 and 3 to initiate the execution proceedings against the recovery of the said amount. 4. It is submitted that an execution petition has been filed by the the respondent and despite several attempts as permissible under the law, the petitioner- applicant has succeeded in evading the same. R/CR.RA/1194/2018 ORDER DATED: 21/07/2025 5. Considering the very limited case as reflected from the aforesaid order and the maneuver on the part of the petitioner, as submitted by learned advocate for the respondent and considering the factum of no protection have been awarded in favour of petitioner herein, this Court is constrained to consider the very demeanor on the part of petitioner. 6. In view of the aforesaid, the present revision application stands dismissed for want of prosecution. (R. T. VACHHANI, J) Radhika Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge. Digitally signed by: RADHIKA ABHILASH(HCD0042), Steno Gr II, at High Court of Gujarat on 23/07/2025 15:06:14