Pankajkumar Harishchandra Parate vs State Of Gujarat

Gujarat High Court

Pankajkumar Harishchandra Parate vs State Of Gujarat on 4 May, 2026

                                                                                                                   NEUTRAL CITATION




                            R/CR.RA/230/2018                                       JUDGMENT DATED: 04/05/2026

                                                                                                                    undefined




                                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
                            R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (FOR MAINTENANCE) NO. 230 of 2018

                       FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

                       HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
                       ==========================================================

                                      Approved for Reporting                  No Yes
                                                                             ✔
                       ==========================================================
                                       PANKAJKUMAR HARISHCHANDRA PARATE
                                                         Versus
                                              STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
                       ==========================================================
                       Appearance:
                       MR YOGESH G KANADE(3114) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
                       MR BHAVESH D HAJARE(5515) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
                       MR ROHAN RAVAL, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
                       ==========================================================
                          CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR

                                                           Date : 04/05/2026
                                                             JUDGMENT

1. By way of the present application, the applicant has requested this Court to quash and set aside the judgment and order dated 12.12.2017 passed by the learned Family Court Nadiad in Criminal Misc. Application No.163 of 2017.

2. It is the case of the applicant that The applicant has been serving as a Police Constable with the State Government since 19.10.2006 and married respondent No. 2 on 29.05.2014. Respondent No. 2 filed HMP No. 131 of 2015 under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which was allowed on 14.08.2015, though the petitioner maintains that he has always been willing to resume cohabitation. On 15.09.2015, the petitioner was allegedly assaulted by one Jayesh, introduced as respondent No. 2's brother, leading to registration of an FIR against respondent No. 2 and her relatives under Sections 323, 504, 506(2), and 114 of the IPC. Thereafter, on 14.03.2016, respondent No. 2 lodged an FIR under Section 498A of the IPC Page 1 of 5 Uploaded by ALI ISTAYAK(HC01093) on Tue May 05 2026 Downloaded on : Tue May 05 21:56:36 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/230/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/05/2026 undefined against the petitioner and his family members. The petitioner had also filed HMP No. 117 of 2016 under Section 13 of the Act, which he later withdrew on 29.12.2017. During its pendency, respondent No. 2 was awarded interim maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- per month and Rs. 2,000/- towards expenses by order dated 18.07.2017, which the petitioner has challenged in Appeal. Subsequently, the petitioner filed HMP No. 366 of 2017 under Section 9 of the Act for restitution of conjugal rights.

3. Learned advocate for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 12.12.2017 is illegal, erroneous, and contrary to the evidence on record. It is contended that no valid marriage has taken place between the parties, as the alleged marriage was only registered without due solemnization in accordance with Sections 7 and 8 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and in absence of essential ceremonies like saptapadi, the marriage is void; hence, respondent No. 2 is not entitled to maintenance, as held in Dolly Rani vs. Manish Kumar Chanchal, (2025) 2 SCC 587. It is further submitted that the petitioner has always been ready to resume cohabitation, and therefore, respondent No. 2 is not entitled to maintenance under Sections 125(3) and 125(4) CrPC. The allegations regarding respondent No. 2's financial incapacity are denied, as she is well- qualified and capable of maintaining herself. It is also contended that respondent No. 2 has voluntarily deserted the petitioner, no proper opportunity of hearing was given, and the proceedings are in violation of principles of natural justice. Hence, the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside.

NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/230/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/05/2026 undefined

4. Learned advocate for respondent No. 2 has opposed the petition and supported the impugned order dated 12.12.2017, submitting that it is legal and based on proper appreciation of evidence. It is contended that respondent No. 2 was compelled to live separately due to the petitioner's conduct and is therefore entitled to maintenance under Section 125 CrPC. Mere willingness of the petitioner to resume cohabitation is insufficient in the facts of the case. The allegations regarding respondent No. 2's independent income are denied as unsubstantiated. It is further submitted that no principles of natural justice have been violated and the petitioner's personal difficulties cannot defeat the statutory right of maintenance. Hence, the petition deserves to be dismissed.

5. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and after perusing the documents on record, it appeas that the Family Court has awarded maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- per month from the date of the application. It appears from the record that the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 29.05.2014 and was duly registered with the Nadiad Municipality. Thereafter, a Hindu Marriage Petition being HMP No. 131 of 2015 under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act was filed, pursuant to which respondent No. 2 resumed cohabitation with the present applicant. Subsequently, in February 2016, proceedings under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506(2), and 114 of the IPC came to be initiated, and thereafter, the applicant himself instituted proceedings seeking divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act.

NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/230/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/05/2026 undefined

6. In view of the aforesaid facts, it is evident that the applicant has himself invoked the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act by filing petitions under Sections 9 and 13, and therefore, he cannot now be permitted to contend that there was no valid marriage between the parties. In the absence of a valid marriage, proceedings under the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights or divorce would not have been maintainable. Moreover, the marriage registration certificate has also been produced on record at Exh. 26.

7. Considering the peculiar facts and the conduct of the applicant, the reliance placed on Dolly Rani vs. Manish Kumar Chanchal (supra) is misplaced, as in the said case, the declaration regarding invalidity of marriage was made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in exercise of powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. In the present case, the question of validity or legality of the marriage does not arise for consideration, particularly in light of the applicant's own conduct and the proceedings initiated by him under the Hindu Marriage Act. Therefore, the contention raised by the learned advocate for the applicant, as well as the authority relied upon, does not assist his case.

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 Page 4 of 5 Uploaded by ALI ISTAYAK(HC01093) on Tue May 05 2026 Downloaded on : Tue May 05 21:56:36 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/230/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/05/2026 undefined 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 permissible grounds.

9. In the light of above-mentioned precedents, it appears that the impugned order deciding the application can not in any way affect the finality of the dispute between the parties. The applicant has failed to point out any patent error in the impugned order or any miscarriage of justice. The family Court has assigned proper reasons while passing the impugned order and therefore no case is made out for interference with the findings. The application fails to satisfy the test for exercising revisional jurisdiction in light of the scope of revision laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Amit Kapoor vs. Ramesh Chander, 2012 (9) SCC 460.

10. Accordingly, the present revision application stands dismissed.

(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J) ALI Page 5 of 5 Uploaded by ALI ISTAYAK(HC01093) on Tue May 05 2026 Downloaded on : Tue May 05 21:56:36 IST 2026