Gujarat High Court
Amul Jagdish Rajyaguru vs Kiran D/O Champakbhai Kashiram Joshi ... on 20 April, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/1476/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/04/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (FOR MAINTENANCE) NO. 1476 of 2018
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
AMUL JAGDISH RAJYAGURU
Versus
KIRAN D/O CHAMPAKBHAI KASHIRAM JOSHI W/O AMUL JAGDISH RAJYAGURU &
ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR ZUBIN F BHARDA(159) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR. S. M. GOHIL(3785) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR ROHAN RAVAL, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 20/04/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Present criminal revision application under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, has been preferred by the applicant requesting to quash and set aside the order dated 13.07.2018 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Rajkot in Criminal Misc. Application No.171 of 2013.
2. Heard Mr. Samir Mansuri, learned advocate appearing for Mr. S.M. Gohil, learned advocate for respondent No. 1. The learned advocate appearing on behalf of Mr. Zubin Bharda, learned advocate for the applicant, submits that she has no instructions and does not have the papers of the case. Hence, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Taj Mohammad v. State of Uttar Pradesh, decided on 11.08.2023 in Criminal Appeal No.2421 of 2023, this Court has considered the averments made in the application as well as the material placed on record and has proceeded to decide the matter in the absence of the applicant based on available material on record.
Page 1 of 9 Uploaded by ALI ISTAYAK(HC01093) on Tue Apr 21 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 21 23:19:18 IST 2026NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/1476/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/04/2026 undefined
3. The case of the applicant is that the the marriage between the Applicant-husband and the Respondent-wife was solemnized on 06.12.1996 at Junagadh, and two sons, namely Vatsal and Jay, were born out of the wedlock. After about three years of marriage, disputes arose as the Respondent insisted that the Applicant live separately from his parents, and accordingly, they started residing separately. It is the case of the Applicant that the Respondent neglected household responsibilities, forced the children to be sent to a hostel, and behaved aggressively towards the Applicant and the children. On 27.07.2012, following an altercation, the Respondent left the matrimonial home on her own and did not return thereafter, leaving the Applicant to take sole care and responsibility of the children. Consequently, the Applicant filed Family Suit No. 419 of 2012 under Section 13(1) (i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking divorce, wherein by order dated 23.10.2013, the Respondent was granted interim maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- per month. During the pendency of the said suit, the Respondent also filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 being Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 171 of 2013, wherein by order dated 07.11.2015, the learned Family Court granted an additional interim maintenance of Rs. 3,000/- per month, which came to be challenged by the Applicant before the Hon'ble High Court and was dismissed on 01.04.2016. The Applicant, who was working with Essar Steel India Limited, resigned from his service on 31.12.2015 due to anticipated layoffs and has since remained unemployed despite efforts to secure employment. The Applicant led evidence, including his own testimony and that of his sons, asserting absence of income and his responsibility Page 2 of 9 Uploaded by ALI ISTAYAK(HC01093) on Tue Apr 21 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 21 23:19:18 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/1476/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/04/2026 undefined towards the children; however, the learned Family Court, by the impugned order dated 13.07.2018, partly allowed the application under Section 125 CrPC by presuming, without any supporting evidence, that the Applicant was earning Rs. 35,000/- per month. Therefore, the present revision application.
4. Upon perusal of the record, it appears that the present application has been preferred by the applicant assailing the order passed by the learned Family Judge primarily on the ground that the learned Family Court has erred in determining the quantum of maintenance. It further appears that, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the conduct and behaviour of the respondent-wife, the applicant instituted Family Suit No. 419 of 2012 under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking divorce, wherein, by order dated 23.10.2013, the respondent was awarded interim maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- per month. During the pendency of the said proceedings, the respondent also filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, being Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 171 of 2013, wherein, by order dated 07.11.2015, the learned Family Court granted an additional sum of Rs. 3,000/- per month as interim maintenance, which came to be challenged by the applicant before the Hon'ble High Court and was dismissed on 01.04.2016. The applicant, who was previously employed with Essar Steel India Limited, resigned from service on 31.12.2015 and has since remained unemployed, having no source of income. It is the case of the applicant that he is unable to maintain the respondent-wife due to his financial constraints and existing liabilities, including the substantial educational expenses of his two sons. However, the Page 3 of 9 Uploaded by ALI ISTAYAK(HC01093) on Tue Apr 21 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 21 23:19:18 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/1476/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/04/2026 undefined learned Family Court, by the impugned order dated 13.07.2018, partly allowed the application under Section 125 CrPC by presuming, without any supporting evidence on record, that the applicant was earning Rs. 35,000/- per month. The learned Judge has also grossly erred in considering the retiral benefits amounting to Rs. 16.30 lakh without properly appreciating the applicant's liabilities and the educational expenses of his sons. Hence, the present application deserves to be allowed.
5. Upon perusal of the documents on record, it appears that there is no dispute regarding the marriage and relationship between the parties. The marriage was solemnized in the year 1996, and two sons were born out of the wedlock. Respondent No. 2 filed an application for maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, contending that the applicant-husband was earning Rs. 50,000/- per month. The learned Family Judge has considered the evidence produced at Exhibit 11, as well as the testimonies of witnesses, namely Mitesh Manharlal at Exhibit 50, Vanrasinh R. Gohil at Exhibit 59, and Jayantibhai L. Moghani at Exhibit 62. The Court has also taken into consideration the documentary evidence produced at Exhibits 44 to 49, along with investment policies at Exhibits 60, 63, and 64. The applicant-husband has also led his evidence at Exhibit 62 and produced documentary evidence at Exhibits 82 to 92.
6. After appreciation of the evidence, it appears that divorce proceedings were instituted before the Family Court, Surat, wherein an order awarding Rs. 5,000/- towards maintenance came to be passed, and the fact of desertion is not in dispute.
Page 4 of 9 Uploaded by ALI ISTAYAK(HC01093) on Tue Apr 21 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 21 23:19:18 IST 2026NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/1476/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/04/2026 undefined
7. So far as the quantum of maintenance is concerned, it is the case of the respondent-wife that the applicant was earning Rs. 50,000/- per month as salary and had no liabilities, his father being a retired Deputy Collector receiving pension. Upon perusal of the documentary evidence produced by Essar Company and the evidence at Exhibit 49, it appears that the applicant had resigned from Essar Company. The Court has also considered his investments, LIC policies with an annual premium of Rs. 1 lakh, and retiral benefits of Rs. 12.53 lakhs. On the basis of such material, and more particularly the reasoning recorded in paragraph 13, the Court came to the conclusion that the applicant was capable of earning at least Rs. 35,000/- per month in the year 2015 and accordingly determined the maintenance on the basis of the surrounding circumstances. Therefore, the order passed by the learned Family Court appears to be well-reasoned, and the maintenance awarded is just and proper, not warranting any interference.
8. From the various judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is well settled that a husband cannot evade his liability to maintain his wife and children, as it is both a legal and moral obligation. The law is clear that the husband is bound to maintain his wife and minor children, and if he neglects or fails to pay maintenance as awarded by the Court, he cannot be said to be entitled to equitable relief in matrimonial proceedings. In this regard, reference may be made to the decision of this Court in Miteshbhai Dinkarbhai Makvana vs. State of Gujarat, reported in 2025(0) AIJEL-HC 250224. Further, in Bhuwan Mohan Singh vs. Meena & Ors., reported in (2015) 6 SCC Page 5 of 9 Uploaded by ALI ISTAYAK(HC01093) on Tue Apr 21 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 21 23:19:18 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/1476/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/04/2026 undefined 353, and Anju Garg and Ors. vs. Deepak Kumar Garg, reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1314, it has been held that it is the sacrosanct duty of the husband to provide financial support to his wife and minor children, and that an able-bodied husband is expected to earn his livelihood even by physical labour and cannot avoid his obligation except on legally permissible grounds. Therefore, the contention raised by the learned advocate for the applicant that he is unable to maintain the respondent-wife or pay maintenance on the ground that the applicant, who was working with Essar Steel India Limited, resigned from his service is not acceptable.
9. A mere subsequent event of retirement leading to a reduction in income is not a valid ground to deny maintenance, particularly in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Shamima Farooqui v. Shahid Khan, reported in (2015) 5 SCC 705, wherein it has been held that a decrease in income does not absolve the husband of his obligation to pay maintenance. The duty of the husband to maintain his wife stands on a higher pedestal. Therefore, the learned Family Judge has not committed any error warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. Further, in the case of Rajnesh vs. Neha & Ors. reported in (2021)2 SCC 324, the Hon'ble Supreme relying on its decision in the case of Reema Salkan vs. Sumer Singh Salkan reported in (2019) 12 SCC 303 observed that the Court must have due regard to the standard of living of the husband, as well as the spiralling inflation rates and high costs of living. The plea of the husband that he does not possess any source of income ipso facto does not absolve him of his moral duty to maintain his wife if he is able bodied and has Page 6 of 9 Uploaded by ALI ISTAYAK(HC01093) on Tue Apr 21 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 21 23:19:18 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/1476/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/04/2026 undefined educational qualifications.
10. Further, it is needless to say that the revisional jurisdiction can be exercised where there is a palpable error or non- compliance with the provision of law and where decision is completely erroneous and where the judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily. Herein, if we examine the reasons assigned by the learned Family Judge, it appears that learned Family Judge has already appreciated the facts and finding of fact not to be upset unless it is found perverse and finding of fact not to be substituted keeping in mind the ratio of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Amit Kapoor vs. Ramesh Chander & Anr. reported in (2012)9 SCC 460 as no perversity is found in the reasons assigned by the learned Family Judge. The learned Family Judge has assigned well-founded reasons while awarding the maintenance to the respondent - wife and such findings are based on evidence led before it and hence also, no interference at the hands of this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction is required.
11. It would also be appropriate to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Malkeet Singh Gill vs. State of Chhatisgarh reported in (2022)8 SCC 204 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that section 397/401 CrPC vests jurisdiction for the purpose of satisfying itself or himself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding and as to the regularity of any proceedings of such inferior court. The object of the provision is to set right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction of law. There has to be well-founded error which is to be determined on the merits of individual case. It is also well Page 7 of 9 Uploaded by ALI ISTAYAK(HC01093) on Tue Apr 21 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 21 23:19:18 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/1476/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/04/2026 undefined settled that while considering the same, the Revisional Court does not dwell at length upon the facts and evidence of the case to reverse those findings. It is a settled legal proposition that if the Court below recorded the finding of fact, the question of re- appreciation of evidence by the revisional Court does not arise unless it is found to be totally perverse.
12. Further, this Court deems it apposite to refer to the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Usha Rani v. Moodudula Srinivas, passed in Criminal Appeal No. (S) of 2025 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.7660 of 2017), and Mohd. Abdul Samad v. State of Telangana, reported in (2004) SCC OnLine SC 1686, wherein the Court held as under:
"43. In this context, I would like to advert to the vulnerability of married women in India who do not have an independent source of income or who do not have access to monetary resources in their households particularly for their personal expenses. In Indian society, it is an established practice that once a daughter is married, she resides with her husband and/or his family unless due to exigency of career or such other reason she has to reside elsewhere. In the case of a woman who has an independent source of income, she may be financially endowed and may not be totally dependent on her husband and his family. But what is the position of a married woman who is often referred to as a "homemaker" and who does not have an independent source of income, whatsoever, and is totally dependent for her financial resources on her husband and on his family? It is well-known that such an Indian homemaker tries to save as much money as possible from the monthly household budget, not only to augment the financial resources of the family but possibly to also save a small portion for her personal expenses. Such a practice is followed in order to avoid making a request to the husband or his family for her personal expenses. Most married men in India do not realise this aspect of the predicament such Indian homemakers face as any request made for expenses may be bluntly turned down by the husband and/or his family. Some husbands are not conscious of the fact that the wife who has no independent source of finance is dependent on Page 8 of 9 Uploaded by ALI ISTAYAK(HC01093) on Tue Apr 21 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 21 23:19:18 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/1476/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/04/2026 undefined them not only emotionally but also financially. On the other hand, a wife who is referred to as a homemaker is working throughout the day for the welfare of the family without expecting anything in return except possibly love and affection, a sense of comfort and respect from her husband and his family which are towards her emotional security. This may also be lacking in certain households.
44. XXX
45. Therefore, I observe that an Indian married man must become conscious of the fact that he would have to financially empower and provide for his wife, who does not have an independent source of income, by making available financial resources particularly towards her personal needs; in other words, giving access to his financial resources. Such financial empowerment would place such a vulnerable wife in a more secure position in the family. Those Indian married men who are conscious of this aspect and who make available their financial resources for their spouse towards their personal expenses, apart from household expenditure, possibly by having a joint bank account or via an ATM card, must be acknowledged."
13. In wake of aforesaid conspectus, present criminal revision application stands dismissed. Resultantly, the impugned order passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Rajkot is hereby confirmed. Rule is hereby discharged. Interim relief, if any stands vacated forthwith.
(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J) ALI Page 9 of 9 Uploaded by ALI ISTAYAK(HC01093) on Tue Apr 21 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 21 23:19:18 IST 2026