Gujarat High Court
Qutbuddin Iqbalbhai Luhar vs Chandaniben D/O Mohmmad Hussain Sheikh ... on 29 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/692/2025 ORDER DATED: 29/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (FOR
MAINTENANCE) NO. 692 of 2025
=========================================
QUTBUDDIN IQBALBHAI LUHAR
Versus
CHANDANIBEN D/O MOHMMAD HUSSAIN SHEIKH W/O
QUTBUDDIN IQBALBHAI LUHAR & ANR.
=========================================
Appearance:
MS. NIDHI P LATHIGARA(17347) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR JV VAGHELA(5809) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR NIRAJ SHARMA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 2
=========================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI
Date : 29/09/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. By way of filing the present application, the applicant has invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, challenging the judgment and order passed by the learned Family Court, Dahod in Criminal Misc. Application No. 296 of 2023. By the said judgment, the learned Family Court has partly allowed the application moved by the contesting respondent-wife, awarding maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- per month from the date of the application. The order further directed consequential costs of Rs. 2,000/-, with clarification that the amount so awarded would be subject to set-off and adjustment against any other order of maintenance, if passed under any law for the time being in force.
Page 1 of 9 Uploaded by MR.KAUSHAL.M. RATHOD(HCD0078) on Thu Oct 09 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 06:26:02 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/692/2025 ORDER DATED: 29/09/2025 undefined
2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the present revision application are that the marriage between the present applicant- husband and the contesting respondent-wife came to be solemnized on 04/11/2022 at Dahod as per the rites and rituals of Muslim Shariyat. Pursuant to the marriage, the respondent-wife, along with her daughter from her previous wedlock, started residing with the applicant-husband in a rented accommodation at Dahod. It is the specific case of the applicant that the relationship between the parties was not new, as they were acquainted and in contact with each other for the last more than eight years prior to the solemnization of marriage. However, according to the applicant, due to certain matrimonial differences and disputes, the relationship between the parties deteriorated, which ultimately gave rise to several litigation pending between them before different forums.
3. On being served with the notice of the proceedings initiated by the respondent-wife before the learned Family Court, Dahod, the applicant appeared and filed his detailed objections. In his objections, the applicant denied the allegations made by the respondent-wife in her application. It was inter alia contended that the applicant is working as a daily wage labourer and has very limited means of livelihood. It was further contended that he also Page 2 of 9 Uploaded by MR.KAUSHAL.M. RATHOD(HCD0078) on Thu Oct 09 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 06:26:02 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/692/2025 ORDER DATED: 29/09/2025 undefined has the responsibility to maintain his aged mother and, therefore, does not possess the financial capacity to pay the exorbitant amount of maintenance claimed by the respondent-wife. The applicant also denied the allegations that he had neglected or refused to maintain the respondent-wife and contended that the respondent herself had left the matrimonial home without any justifiable reason.
4. The findings of the issues, after considering the pleadings, evidence on record, and the reasons assigned here-in-below, are as under:
1. Issue No. 1: Whether the Applicant-Wife proves that despite the Respondent having sufficient means, he has neglected to provide maintenance to the Applicants? -- In the affirmative.
2. Issue No. 2: Whether the Applicant-Wife proves that the Applicants are entitled to receive maintenance while living separately from the Respondent? If yes, then how much? -- In the affirmative, as per the final order.
3. Issue No. 3: What order? -- As per the final order.
The discussion on the grounds for the findings on the aforesaid issue no.1 is as under:-
"Whether the Applicant-Wife proves that, despite the Respondent having sufficient means, he has neglected to provide maintenance to the Applicant.
-- Learned Advocate Shri D. H. Meghwani for the Applicant submitted that the Applicant and the Respondent were acquainted for several years and, after her divorce on 02/03/2022, they entered into a Page 3 of 9 Uploaded by MR.KAUSHAL.M. RATHOD(HCD0078) on Thu Oct 09 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 06:26:02 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/692/2025 ORDER DATED: 29/09/2025 undefined Nikah on 04/11/2022, evidenced by the Nikahnama (Exh. 37) duly signed by both parties, witnesses, and the Maulana. Despite such marriage, the Respondent has failed and neglected to maintain the Applicant. Learned Advocate Shri S. V. Malek for the Respondent contended that the Nikahnama is fabricated and that the Applicant failed to observe the complete iddat period, alleging that she habitually files false complaints and extorts money; however, no evidence has been produced in support of these allegations, nor has any challenge been raised against the genuineness of the Nikahnama. From the evidence, it stands proved that the Applicant and the Respondent lived together as husband and wife after their Nikah, and that the divorce from the Applicant's first husband took place eight months prior thereto, thereby ruling out any irregularity under Muslim Law. The testimonies of the witnesses and the Maulana who solemnized the marriage fully corroborate the Applicant's case, whereas the Respondent has failed to substantiate any of his claims. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena [(2015) 6 SCC 353], K.A. Abdul Jaleel v. T.A. Shahida [(2003) SCC (Cri) 810], Samima Faruq v. Shahid Khan [AIR 2015 SC 2025], and Savitaben Somabhai Bhatiya v. State of Gujarat [AIR 2005 SCW 1601] has held that maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. is a measure of social justice and that a husband's obligation to maintain his wife is of the highest order. These authorities further emphasize that such proceedings should be interpreted liberally to prevent destitution and ensure a woman's right to live with dignity. Applying these principles, it is evident that the Respondent, despite having sufficient means, has failed and neglected to maintain the Applicant and has made baseless allegations to evade responsibility. Hence, Issue No. 1 is answered in the affirmative, holding that the Applicant has proved that the Respondent has neglected to maintain her despite having sufficient means."Page 4 of 9 Uploaded by MR.KAUSHAL.M. RATHOD(HCD0078) on Thu Oct 09 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 06:26:02 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/692/2025 ORDER DATED: 29/09/2025 undefined
5. Upon appreciation of the evidence, the learned Family Court recorded its findings that it is not in dispute that the marriage between the applicant and the respondent-wife was duly solemnized and that they resided together as husband and wife. The Court further observed that the allegations of neglect and desertion made by the respondent-wife were specifically denied by the applicant, but no substantial material had been produced by the applicant to support his denial.
6. The learned Family Court further considered the lifestyle of the parties, their status, and the surrounding circumstances, and came to the conclusion that the respondent-wife was entitled to maintenance. While assessing the quantum, the Court also considered the capacity of the applicant to earn and maintain his family, and thereafter partly allowed the application by awarding maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- per month to the respondent-wife, along with costs of Rs. 2,000/-. The reasons for such findings are elaborately discussed in the impugned judgment, particularly in paragraphs 13, 14 and 15 which reads as under :
(13) In the judgment of the case of 2010(3) GCD 2566 Pantheshbhai Dashratbhai Patel v.
Darshanaben P. Patel, the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat has held that:
"The facts on record indicated that standard of living of the husband was very comfortable. The husband Page 5 of 9 Uploaded by MR.KAUSHAL.M. RATHOD(HCD0078) on Thu Oct 09 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 06:26:02 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/692/2025 ORDER DATED: 29/09/2025 undefined had not cooperated in disclosing his true income. The wife cannot be deprived of her basic necessities."
(13/1) In the judgment of the case of Amit Ramchandra Savlani v. Chitra Amit Savlani, 2017(2) GLR 1703, the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat has held that:
"Maintenance includes all the necessities of the wife and children. The wife and children are entitled to live with the same status as the husband/father lives. Along with the husband's income, the basic requirements of the wife must also be considered by the Court. The husband was leading a luxurious life, carrying on business with his father and enjoyed a higher standard of living than that of his wife and children. Facts disclosed in income tax returns by themselves cannot be treated as credible evidence."
(14) In view of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble High Court in the aforesaid judgments, while passing an order for maintenance, the Court must consider the husband's income, his capacity to maintain, the status of both parties, the basic requirements of livelihood, the sources of income of the Applicant and the Respondent, prevailing inflation and the value of money. Considering these principles, the circumstances on record, the Respondent's income and responsibilities, current inflation and the minimum expenses required for maintenance, I deem it just and proper to direct the Respondent to pay Rs.5,000 per month to the Applicant towards maintenance, with effect from the date of filing of the application. Accordingly, Issue No.2 is answered in the affirmative.
(15) Since the present application has been necessitated on account of the default by the Respondent and since from the date of filing of the application, i.e., 08/12/2023, the Respondent has made no arrangement for the maintenance of the Applicant, it appears just and proper that the Respondent be directed to pay the costs of this application to the Applicant, with the order taking effect from the date of the application. Therefore, in the interest of justice, with respect to Issue No.3, the following final order is passed.
7. On a careful perusal of the record of the case, the pleadings Page 6 of 9 Uploaded by MR.KAUSHAL.M. RATHOD(HCD0078) on Thu Oct 09 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 06:26:02 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/692/2025 ORDER DATED: 29/09/2025 undefined of the parties, and the reasoning assigned by the learned Family Court, this Court does not find any illegality, perversity, or error apparent on the face of the record which would warrant interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. The learned Family Court has appreciated the material on record in its proper perspective and has rightly come to the conclusion that the respondent-wife is entitled to maintenance in order to sustain herself with dignity.
8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Family Court, Dahod, does not suffer from any infirmity requiring interference.
9. The learned Family Court has awarded the maintenance in favour of deserted/neglected wife so that the wife can live with the manner as she likes to which she was accustomed/living before she was deserted/neglected. Thus, the Court is required to see that the husband makes provision for food and clothing of the wife and further to consider basic need of deserted wife would be fulfilled. In other words, her living need not be luxurious, but simultaneously, she should not be left to live in discomfort. The husband has tendency either to withhold material evidence of his Page 7 of 9 Uploaded by MR.KAUSHAL.M. RATHOD(HCD0078) on Thu Oct 09 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 06:26:02 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/692/2025 ORDER DATED: 29/09/2025 undefined income or to disclose part material evidence as to his income. It is needless to say that when wife comes before the Court with a plea that she is entitled to get maintenance from her husband, before arriving at a finding whether she is entitled for maintenance or not, the Court must put efforts to find out truth of the matter. Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is a measure of social justice and specially enacted to protect woman, who is deserted/neglected by the husband, who is bound to maintain her.
10. The learned Family Court, upon considering the pleadings and evidence on record adduced by the parties, came to the conclusion that the husband has deserted/neglected the wife, the Court is required to order proper maintenance amount in the facts and circumstances of the case on hand. So, only issue here comes on hand is whether the learned Family Court has committed an error in awarding maintenance amount, as aforesaid.
11. In absence of legal infirmity either in the procedure or in the conduct of trial, there is no justification for this Court to interfere in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. The High Court is not required to re-appreciate the evidence to reach a finding different from the Family Court. In absence of manifest illegality resulting in grave miscarriage of justice, exercise of revision jurisdiction u/s Page 8 of 9 Uploaded by MR.KAUSHAL.M. RATHOD(HCD0078) on Thu Oct 09 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 06:26:02 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/692/2025 ORDER DATED: 29/09/2025 undefined 397 r/w section 401 of the Code, in such case, is not warranted.
12. In view of the foregoing discussion, and considering the conduct of the applicant as well as the cogent reasoning assigned by the learned Family Court, this Court finds no valid ground to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, the present revision application stands dismissed.
(R. T. VACHHANI, J) Kaushal Rathod Page 9 of 9 Uploaded by MR.KAUSHAL.M. RATHOD(HCD0078) on Thu Oct 09 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 06:26:02 IST 2025