Gujarat High Court
Archana W/O Sudhirbhai Sharma @ Archana ... vs State Of Gujarat on 28 April, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/332/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/04/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (FOR MAINTENANCE) NO. 332 of 2019
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting No Yes
✔
==========================================================
ARCHANA W/O SUDHIRBHAI SHARMA @ ARCHANA D/O RAMKRISHNA TIYADI &
ANR.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR NL RAMNANI(2400) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2
MR TEJAS D SHUKLA(5312) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MS MONALI BHATT, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 28/04/2026
JUDGMENT
1. The present Criminal Revision Application under Sections 397 read with 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, has been preferred by the applicant seeking quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 08.02.2019 passed below Exhibit 28 by the Family Court No.2, Ahmedabad in Criminal Misc. Application No.2128 of 2017, and for enhancement of monthly maintenance to Rs.20,000/- per month for applicant No.1 and Rs.15,000/- for applicant No.2 from the date of filing of the application.
2. The case of the applicant is that applicant No.1 is the legally wedded wife of opponent No.2 and applicant No.2 is their son born out of the wedlock; however, due to alleged harassment, applicant No.1 was compelled to reside separately and initially initiated proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C., followed by proceedings under Section 127 Cr.P.C. seeking enhancement of maintenance. Earlier, this Court in Revision Page 1 of 6 Uploaded by ALI ISTAYAK(HC01093) on Wed Apr 29 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 29 21:46:28 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/332/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/04/2026 undefined Application No.743 of 2013 had enhanced the maintenance to Rs.5,000/- and Rs.3,000/- respectively. Thereafter, the applicants, being partly aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated 08.02.2019 passed below Exh.28 in Criminal Misc. Application No.2128 of 2017 by the learned Judge, Family Court No.2, Ahmedabad, whereby the application under Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure came to be partly allowed and the maintenance was enhanced from Rs.5,000/- to Rs.6,000/- per month for applicant No.1 and from Rs.3,000/- to Rs.4,000/- per month for applicant No.2, have preferred the present revision application seeking further enhancement.
3. Learned advocate for the applicant submits that the learned Family Judge has erred in properly appreciating the evidence on record and has adopted a myopic view while awarding maintenance of only Rs.6,000/- to applicant No.1 and Rs.4,000/- to applicant No.2, totaling Rs.10,000/- per month, as against Rs.35,000/- claimed in the application. It is submitted that despite recording a finding that the opponent is earning a salary of Rs.70,000/- per month and has no other liability to maintain anyone, the learned Family Judge has awarded a meagre amount of maintenance. It is further submitted that applicant No.1 is entitled to maintenance of at least Rs.20,000/- per month and applicant No.2 is entitled to Rs.15,000/- per month. The learned Family Judge ought to have considered that opponent No.2 has no liability except to maintain the present applicants. It is also submitted that opponent No.2 is receiving various service benefits and is financially capable of maintaining the applicants, particularly considering the standard of living Page 2 of 6 Uploaded by ALI ISTAYAK(HC01093) on Wed Apr 29 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 29 21:46:28 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/332/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/04/2026 undefined maintained during the period from 2008 to 2016 and the rise in prices of essential commodities. The learned Family Judge ought to have taken into account the price index/escalation during the relevant period. It is further submitted that the earlier proceedings initiated by opponent No.2, namely the petition under Section 9 and thereafter the petition under Section 13 for divorce, were merely pressure tactics to harass the applicant, and that the applicant has incurred substantial expenses in defending the said proceedings. Hence, it is prayed that the present revision application be allowed.
4. Learned advocate for respondent No.2 has opposed the application and submitted that applicant No.2 is no longer entitled to maintenance as he has attained majority. Further, it is submitted that the applicant has failed to comply with the restitution of conjugal rights proceedings and she is not ready and willing to join the respondent No.2. It is also submitted that the income of respondent No.2 has been incorrectly stated by the applicants, as his gross salary is Rs.64,000/- per month and not Rs.70,000/- per month as alleged. Therefore, it is contended that the learned Family Judge has not committed any error in awarding the maintenance. In view of the above, learned advocate for respondent No.2 prays that the present application be dismissed.
5. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and after perusing the record, it appears that the relationship between the parties is not in dispute. So far as entitlement is concerned, earlier, the applicant had preferred an Page 3 of 6 Uploaded by ALI ISTAYAK(HC01093) on Wed Apr 29 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 29 21:46:28 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/332/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/04/2026 undefined application for alteration of the amount of maintenance granted by the learned Family Judge. Initially, in Criminal Misc. Application No.2347 of 2008, maintenance was granted at Rs.3,000/- to applicant No.1 and Rs.2,000/- to applicant No.2. Being aggrieved, a revision application was preferred in 2013, wherein this Court was pleased to enhance the same to Rs.5,000/- and Rs.3,000/- respectively (total Rs.8,000/-). Thereafter, in 2016, an enhancement application was filed under Section 127 of the Cr.P.C.
6. As per the applicant, she is unable to maintain herself and the minor on the maintenance amount of Rs.8,000/-, as respondent No.2 earns Rs.70,000/- to Rs.75,000/- per month in government service and has no other liability. Applicant No.2 is studying in Standard 8, and upon perusal of the evidence produced at Exhibits 3 and 16, it appears that respondent No.2 is residing in a government quarter. The applicant holds an LL.B. degree, but she is not actively engaged in practice.
7. It appears that Respondent No.2 has admitted that his salary has increased and that increments have been released in his favour. Further, during the years 2016 to 2018, the educational expenses of applicant No.2 have also increased. Earlier, when the order was passed in the year 2011, the salary of respondent No.2 was Rs.20,729/-; however, thereafter, from 1st January, 2016, due to the implementation of the 7 th Pay Commission, his salary has increased. Though the learned Family Judge has considered the said fact, the Court enhanced the maintenance only by Rs.1,000/- to each applicant, i.e., a Page 4 of 6 Uploaded by ALI ISTAYAK(HC01093) on Wed Apr 29 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 29 21:46:28 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/332/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/04/2026 undefined total increase of Rs.2,000/-. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the learned Family Judge has adopted a myopic view while enhancing the maintenance of the applicants. In the year 2013, in the revision application, this Court had enhanced the maintenance by Rs.3,000/-, and after a passage of eight years, only an increase of Rs.1,000/- each has been granted till applicant No.2 attained majority.
8. In view of the above, considering the financial stability of respondent No.2 and the fact that respondent No.2 has no other liability except to maintain the applicants, the order passed by the learned Family Judge requires interference.
9. 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 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 Page 5 of 6 Uploaded by ALI ISTAYAK(HC01093) on Wed Apr 29 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 29 21:46:28 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/332/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/04/2026 undefined permissible grounds.
10. In view of the above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the duty of the husband to maintain his wife stands on a higher pedestal. The learned Family Judge has, therefore, committed an error in awarding inadequate maintenance in light of the husband's income, warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. Further, in Rajnesh vs. Neha & Ors., reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, relying upon its earlier decision in Reema Salkan vs. Sumer Singh Salkan, reported in (2019) 12 SCC 303, has 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 cost of living. The plea of the husband that he has no source of income does not ipso facto absolve him of his moral duty to maintain his wife, particularly if he is an able-bodied person possessing sufficient educational qualifications.
11. In view of the above, the present Criminal Revision Application stands partly allowed. The maintenance is accordingly enhanced to Rs.10,000/- for applicant No.1 and Rs.5,000/- for applicant No.2 till he attains majority from the date of filing the application. The judgment and order dated dated 08.02.2019 passed below Exhibit 28 by the Family Court No.2, Ahmedabad in Criminal Misc. Application No.2128 of 2017 stands modified to the aforesaid extent. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted.
(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J) ALI Page 6 of 6 Uploaded by ALI ISTAYAK(HC01093) on Wed Apr 29 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 29 21:46:28 IST 2026