Gujarat High Court
Aarti W/O Kapilkumar Dattattrey D/O ... vs State Of Gujarat on 21 April, 2026
Author: Gita Gopi
Bench: Gita Gopi
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/977/2025 ORDER DATED: 21/04/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (FOR MAINTENANCE) NO. 977 of
2025
==========================================================
AARTI W/O KAPILKUMAR DATTATTREY D/O SHIVDAYAL SHARMA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS AVANI V PATEL(8016) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR YAGNESHKUMAR S JOSHI(8074) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR PS PATEL(643) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR NIRAJ SHARMA APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
Date : 21/04/2026
ORDER
1. The applicant has challenged the order rejecting the maintenance application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'Cr.PC') dated 05.04.2025 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Vadodara in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.882 of 2021.
2. Learned Advocate Mr. Yogesh Joshi for the applicant submitted that the family Court on the ground of the educational qualification and vocational training of the applicant and a short-term employment of nine days, that too after the filing of the application for maintenance and her holding of the SBI credit card on the ground of the temporary employment in SBI Credit Card Department had found the applicant capable to maintain herself, thus has rejected the application.
Page 1 of 13 Uploaded by PARMAR KRISH JAYESH(HC02348) on Mon Apr 27 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 27 21:54:05 IST 2026NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/977/2025 ORDER DATED: 21/04/2026 undefined 2.1 Advocate Mr. Joshi, referring to the judgment of Chaturbhuj vs. Sita Bai, (2008) 2 SCC 316, submitted that the learned Family Court Judge has overlooked the settled principles that the wife's inability to maintain herself must be assessed on the relevant circumstances, which would be the circumstances after the marriage and during the matrimonial life and not the past employment or the academic background.
2.2 Advocate Mr. Joshi has also referred to the judgments of Shailja vs. Khobbanna, 2017 (0) AIJEL-SC 59972, Nirmala Bhanji vs. Jayantilal Vithaldas, 1975 (0) AIJEL-HC 208734, Chaturbhuj vs. Sita Bai, 2007 (0) AIJEL-SC 40145, Kumpal Jagdishbhai Madrasi vs. State of Gujarat, 2024 (0) AIJEL-HC 248140, Meghrajsingh S/o Maharajsinh Chudasma vs. Meghaviniba W/o Meghrajsinh Chudasama D/o Prahladsinhji Pradyumansinhji Jadeja and Anr., 2024 (0) AIJEL-HC 249045, Ravinder Singh Bisht vs. State of U.P. and anr. In Cr.Ra No.1637 of 2025, Sunita Kachwaha vs. Anil Kachwaha, 2014 (0) AIJEL-HC 55844, submitting that the status of the husband, his living standard and the means of the husband has to be considered while assessing the requirement of the maintenance money. Even if the wife is capable of earning, the husband cannot deny the maintenance as per his standard.
2.3 Advocate Mr. Joshi has also relied on the judgment of Sunita Kachwaha (supra) to submit that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has noted the facts of the post graduation qualification of the wife and has held that merely because of such Page 2 of 13 Uploaded by PARMAR KRISH JAYESH(HC02348) on Mon Apr 27 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 27 21:54:05 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/977/2025 ORDER DATED: 21/04/2026 undefined qualification, it would not be sufficient to hold that she is not in a position to maintain herself and merely because the wife is earning something, it would not be a ground to deny maintenance in absence of the proof of employment on record.
2.4 Advocate Mr. Joshi submitted that the applicant had tried to seek employment after filing the maintenance application but had failed. She could serve only for nine days which is an admitted proof on record and though inspite of her educational qualification and vocational training, she has not been in a position to secure any job.
3. Countering the arguments, learned Advocate Mr. Amit Patel for learned Advocate Mr. PS Patel relying on the judgments of Cri.Rev.P.No.273/2023 and Cr.ma No.6767/2023, Gurpreet Dhariwal vs. Amit Jain 2022/DHC/001082, Sukhmani Kaur and Anr. vs. Ravinder Palsingh Crr.F-386-2024 (O&M), Damanpreet Kaur vs. Indermeet Juneja and Anr. Cr.L. Rev.P. 344/2011, Sh. Neeraj Aggarwal vs. Mrs. Veeka Aggarwal, M.No.28/2007 submitted that in the referred judgments, the courts have taken into consideration the educational qualification of the petitioner, her capability of earning, her previous employment and the fact that the wife being well-qualified, she cannot be given any benefit of her own volition of remaining idle. Advocate Mr. Patel submitted that when she is having sufficient qualification for earning her own livelihood, then the burden should not be laid down on the husband to maintain her.
Page 3 of 13 Uploaded by PARMAR KRISH JAYESH(HC02348) on Mon Apr 27 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 27 21:54:05 IST 2026NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/977/2025 ORDER DATED: 21/04/2026 undefined
4. The observation of the learned Judge was on the basis that petitioner had after completing her education in standard 12th, in the year 2014-15 she had succeeded in National Credit Corpus, NCC-B certificate, thereafter, had taken the admission in MS University, Baroda for Bachelors of Commerce and after completion of the Bachelorate, in the year 2017 had taken the "Post Graduate Diploma in Applied Economics". From the course of "Jan Sikshan Sansthan", she obtained "Certificate In Office Automation" and "Financial Accounting". Further, through program for skill building organized by ICICI Academy for Skills, she acquired knowledge of "Selling Skills" and further, she acquired nine months job experience in SBI Bank Credit Department and also in "Innovsource Services Pvt. Ltd." she worked as "Branch Relationship Manager", further her admission in the cross-examination of having attended nine days job from 05.08.2023 to 16.08.2023, has been the cause of rejection of the maintenance application.
5. In the case of Chaturbhuj (supra) referred by learned Advocate Mr. Joshi, it has been observed in para nos. 6, 7, and 8 as under:
"6. The object of the maintenance proceedings is not to punish a person for his past neglect, but to prevent vagrancy by compelling those who can provide support to those who are unable to support themselves and who have a moral claim to support. The phrase "unable to maintain herself" in the instant case would mean that means available to the deserted wife while she was living with her husband and Page 4 of 13 Uploaded by PARMAR KRISH JAYESH(HC02348) on Mon Apr 27 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 27 21:54:05 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/977/2025 ORDER DATED: 21/04/2026 undefined would not take within itself the efforts made by the wife after desertion to survive somehow. Section 125 CrPC is a measure of social justice and is specially enacted to protect women and children and as noted by this Court in Captain Ramesh Chander Kaushal v. Veena Kaushal [(1978) 4 SCC 70 : 1978 SCC (Cri) 508 : AIR 1978 SC 1807] falls within constitutional sweep of Article 15(3) reinforced by Article 39 of the Constitution of India. It is meant to achieve a social purpose. The object is to prevent vagrancy and destitution. It provides a speedy remedy for the supply of food, clothing and shelter to the deserted wife. It gives effect to fundamental rights and natural duties of a man to maintain his wife, children and parents when they are unable to maintain themselves. The aforesaid position was highlighted in Savitaben Somabhai Bhatiya v. State of Gujarat [(2005) 3 SCC 636 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 787 : (2005) 2 Supreme 503] .
7. Under the law the burden is placed in the first place upon the wife to show that the means of her husband are sufficient. In the instant case there is no dispute that the appellant has the requisite means. But there is an inseparable condition which has also to be satisfied that the wife was unable to maintain herself. These two conditions are in addition to the requirement that the husband must have neglected or refused to maintain his wife. It has to be established that the wife was unable to maintain herself. The appellant has placed material to show that the respondent wife was earning some income. That is not sufficient to rule out application of Section 125 CrPC. It has to be established that with the amount she Page 5 of 13 Uploaded by PARMAR KRISH JAYESH(HC02348) on Mon Apr 27 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 27 21:54:05 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/977/2025 ORDER DATED: 21/04/2026 undefined earned the respondent wife was able to maintain herself.
8. In an illustrative case where the wife was surviving by begging, it would not amount to her ability to maintain herself. It can also be not said that the wife has been capable of earning but she was not making an effort to earn. Whether the deserted wife was unable to maintain herself, has to be decided on the basis of the material placed on record. Where the personal income of the wife is insufficient she can claim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC. The test is whether the wife is in a position to maintain herself in the way she was used to in the place of her husband. In Bhagwan Dutt v. Kamla Devi [(1975) 2 SCC 386 : 1975 SCC (Cri) 563 : AIR 1975 SC 83] it was observed that the wife should be in a position to maintain a standard of living which is neither luxurious nor penurious but what is consistent with status of a family. The expression "unable to maintain herself" does not mean that the wife must be absolutely destitute before she can apply for maintenance under Section 125 CrPC."
5.1 In the case of Shailja (supra) referred by learned Advocate Mr. Joshi, it has been referred in para 8 as under:
"8. That apart, we find that the High Court has proceeded on the basis that Appellant 1 was capable of earning and that is one of the reasons for reducing the maintenance granted to her by the Family Court. Whether Appellant 1 is capable of earning or whether she is actually earning are two different requirements. Merely because Page 6 of 13 Uploaded by PARMAR KRISH JAYESH(HC02348) on Mon Apr 27 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 27 21:54:05 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/977/2025 ORDER DATED: 21/04/2026 undefined Appellant 1 is capable of earning is not, in our opinion, sufficient reason to reduce the maintenance awarded by the Family Court."
6. Learned Advocate Mr. Patel submitted that the learned Family Court Judge has analyzed the evidence on record and had considered the qualification of the applicant and her previous employment and even the fact of her holding the credit card of the bank and the capability to earning and maintaining herself, has rightly rejected the application submitting that if the wife is well qualified and have the ability to earn handsomely, then the prayer of maintenance ought not to have been granted, which has been rightly done by the family Court.
7. The fact of the matter as has come on record shows that the wife prior to the marriage was having a job as "Branch Relationship Manager" and had also a job experience in SBI Credit Department and therefore was holding the credit card and after the bachelor degree, she had applied in various certification post and had also obtained NCC certificate. The evidence thus had followed upon the Family Court for concluding that the applicant wife was in a position to maintain herself. The temporary employment as has been recorded was only after the filing of the maintenance application, which also the applicant could not retained. There is nothing on record to suggest that after marriage, the applicant-wife was permitted to go for an employment.
Page 7 of 13 Uploaded by PARMAR KRISH JAYESH(HC02348) on Mon Apr 27 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 27 21:54:05 IST 2026NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/977/2025 ORDER DATED: 21/04/2026 undefined
8. Having observed the observations in the judgments of Chaturbhuj (supra) and Shailja (supra), merely producing on record that the applicant-wife was having sufficient educational qualification and was earning some income prior to the marriage, that would not be sufficient to rule out the application of Section 125 of Cr.PC. It has to be established that the wife was earning and that the earning of the wife was sufficient for her to maintain herself.
9. Here, having considered the evidence on record, the applicant-wife had tried to seek some employment after filing the maintenance petition, but could not succeed in her job. Nothing has been proved on record of the applicant's-wife earning or of any employment and when the respondent- husband though having sufficient means has failed to maintain the wife, then that could be considered as neglect and refusal from his side, making the application under Section 125 of the Cr.PC maintainable.
10. In the case of Rajnesh v. Neha and Another reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324, it has been noted in Paragraphs 90 to 92 where the observations has been made with regard to the earning of the wife as well as maintenance of the minor child. The same are reproduced as under :-
"(c) Where wife is earning some income
90. The courts have held that if the wife is earning, it cannot operate as a bar from Page 8 of 13 Uploaded by PARMAR KRISH JAYESH(HC02348) on Mon Apr 27 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 27 21:54:05 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/977/2025 ORDER DATED: 21/04/2026 undefined being awarded maintenance by the husband. The Courts have provided guidance on this issue in the following judgments.
90.1. In Shailja and Anr. v. Khobbanna (2018) 12 SCC 199, this Court held that merely because the wife is capable of earning, it would not be a sufficient ground to reduce the maintenance awarded by the Family Court. The Court has to determine whether the income of the wife is sufficient to enable her to maintain herself, in accordance with the lifestyle of her husband in the matrimonial home.
Sustenance does not mean, and cannot be allowed to mean mere survival.
90.2. In Sunita Kachwaha and Ors. v. Anil Kachwaha (2014) 16 SCC 715 the wife had a postgraduate degree, and was employed as a teacher in Jabalpur. The husband raised a contention that since the wife had sufficient income, she would not require financial assistance from the husband. The Supreme Court repelled this contention, and held that merely because the wife was earning some income, it could not be a ground to reject her claim for maintenance.
90.3. The Bombay High Court in Sanjay Damodar Kale v. Kalyani Sanjay Kale 2020 SCC OnLine Bom 694 while relying upon the judgment in Sunita Kachwaha (supra), held that neither the mere potential to earn, nor the actual earning of the wife, howsoever meagre, is sufficient to deny the Page 9 of 13 Uploaded by PARMAR KRISH JAYESH(HC02348) on Mon Apr 27 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 27 21:54:05 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/977/2025 ORDER DATED: 21/04/2026 undefined claim of maintenance.
90.4. An able-bodied husband must be presumed to be capable of earning sufficient money to maintain his wife and children, and cannot contend that he is not in a position to earn sufficiently to maintain his family, as held by the Delhi High Court in Chander Prakash Bodhraj v. Shila Rani Chander Prakash AIR 1968 Delhi 174. The onus is on the husband to establish with necessary material that there are sufficient grounds to show that he is unable to maintain the family, and discharge his legal obligations for reasons beyond his control. If the husband does not disclose the exact amount of his income, an adverse inference may be drawn by the Court.
90.5. This Court in Shamima Farooqui v.
Shahid Khan (2015) 5 SCC 705 cited the judgment in Chander Prakash (supra) with approval, and held that the obligation of the husband to provide maintenance stands on a higher pedestal than the wife.
(d) Maintenance of minor children
91. The living expenses of the child would include expenses for food, clothing, residence, medical expenses, education of children. Extra coaching classes or any other vocational training courses to complement the basic education must be factored in, while awarding child support. Albeit, it should be a reasonable amount to be awarded for extra-curricular/coaching classes, and not an overly extravagant Page 10 of 13 Uploaded by PARMAR KRISH JAYESH(HC02348) on Mon Apr 27 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 27 21:54:05 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/977/2025 ORDER DATED: 21/04/2026 undefined amount which may be claimed.
92. Education expenses of the children must be normally borne by the father. If the wife is working and earning sufficiently, the expenses may be shared proportionately between the parties."
11. In the recent decision of the Apex Court dated 16.04.2026 in the case of Deepa Joshi v. Gaurav Joshi in Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No.15662 of 2025, in Paragraphs 11, 12, 13, 14, and 16 it has been held as under :-
"11. The object of maintenance proceedings is well settled. In Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai reported in (2008) 2 SCC 316, this Court held that the provision is intended to prevent destitution and that a wife is not required to establish absolute inability to survive before claiming maintenance. In Shamima Farooqui v. Shahid Khan reported in (2015) 5 SCC 705, it was emphasized that maintenance must not be illusory and should enable the wife to live with dignity. Further, in Rajnesh v. Neha and Another reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324, this Court reiterated that maintenance must be fair, reasonable and commensurate with the status of the parties and the financial capacity of the husband.
12. Tested on the aforesaid principles, it emerges that the determination of maintenance must be guided by a balanced assessment of the earning capacity of the Page 11 of 13 Uploaded by PARMAR KRISH JAYESH(HC02348) on Mon Apr 27 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 27 21:54:05 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/977/2025 ORDER DATED: 21/04/2026 undefined husband and the reasonable needs of the wife. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the respondent is in salaried employment and has a regular source of income. The Family Court, while determining maintenance, appears to have accorded considerable weight to deductions reflected in the salary, and the High Court has, to an extent, corrected the inadequacy by enhancing the amount.
13. However, deductions arising out of financial commitments such as loan repayments, particularly where they contribute towards creation of assets, cannot be placed on the same footing as necessary expenditure so as to substantially reduce the liability of maintenance. The liability to maintain a spouse is a primary obligation and cannot be subordinated to such financial arrangements.
14. It is also not in dispute that the appellant has no independent source of income and has been residing separately shortly after the marriage. The maintenance awarded must therefore enable her to sustain herself with a reasonable degree of dignity, consistent with the status of the parties. At the same time, it is necessary to ensure that the determination remains fair and reasonable and does not impose an excessive burden upon the respondent. The exercise is one of achieving a just balance between competing considerations.Page 12 of 13 Uploaded by PARMAR KRISH JAYESH(HC02348) on Mon Apr 27 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 27 21:54:05 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/977/2025 ORDER DATED: 21/04/2026 undefined
16. The obligation of the husband to maintain his spouse is a primary and continuing duty, which must be discharged in a manner that enables the wife to live with dignity and in a standard commensurate with that enjoyed during the subsistence of the marriage. Viewed thus, deductions on account of asset-generating repayments cannot be permitted to substantially dilute the respondent's real earning capacity for the purpose of determining maintenance. We are of the opinion that a sum of ₹25,000/- per month would be just, fair and reasonable in the facts of the present case."
12. The learned Family Court Judge has observed that the respondent-husband is having the job in Voltamp company earning monthly income of Rs.33,458/- and the husband has responsibility of both the parents, the unit will be considered four in number and individual unit would be entitled for an amount of Rs.8,364.50/-, hence in rounding up the figure, the liability of the husband to maintain the applicant-wife would be of Rs.8,365/- per month.
13. In the result, the application is allowed. The order of the learned Family Court Judge, Vadodara dated 05.04.2025, rejecting the maintenance application is set aside. It is ordered that the respondent-husband shall pay the maintenance amount of Rs.8,365/- per month from the date of the Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.882 of 2021.
(GITA GOPI,J) PARMAR KRISH/39 Page 13 of 13 Uploaded by PARMAR KRISH JAYESH(HC02348) on Mon Apr 27 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 27 21:54:05 IST 2026