Gujarat High Court
Sanjay Firozbhai Merani vs State Of Gujarat on 4 April, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/797/2016 ORDER DATED: 04/04/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (FOR MAINTENANCE) NO. 797 of
2016
==========================================================
SANJAY FIROZBHAI MERANI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR K S CHANDRANI(6674) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR SHAKTI S JADEJA(5491) for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3
MR. BHARGAV PANDYA, ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANAV TRIVEDI
Date : 04/04/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. Present revision application is preferred being
aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order
dated 10.8.2016 in Criminal Misc. Application No. 820 of
2014 passed by learned Judge, Family Court, Rajkot
directing the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs. 15,000/-
to respondent No.1 and Rs.5000/- to respondent No.2 per
month as maintenance as per the provisions of Section
125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
2. The short facts giving rise of filing of the present
revision application is that wedding between the
petitioner and respondent No.2 was solemnised on
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/797/2016 ORDER DATED: 04/04/2025
undefined
6.3.2006. Out of the said wedlock, a girl child i.e.
respondent No.3 was born on 17.4.2010. Subsequent to
the birth of respondent No.3, matrimonial discord had
arisen between the parties in the year 2014, which led to
litigations between both the parties. On 30.9.2014, an
First Information Report came to be filed by the
respondent No.2 against the petitioner and other family
members for the offence under Sections 498-A, 323, 504
and 506(2). Pursuant to the First Information Report, the
respondent preferred an application before the Family
Court, Rajkot seeking maintenance under Section 125 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure. Pursuant to the First
Information Report, charge-sheet came to be filed before
the Judicial Magistrate First Class, which came to be
registered as Criminal Case No. 7847 of 2014. The
petitioner along with other accused came to be acquitted
by order dated 3.5.2016. The learned Family Court,
Rajkot disposed of the application for maintenance by
order dated 10.8.2014, directing the petitioner to pay
Rs.15000/- per month to respondent No.2 and Rs.5000/-
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/797/2016 ORDER DATED: 04/04/2025
undefined
to respondent No.3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by
the order dated 10.8.2016, the present revision
application is preferred under Section 397 read with
Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
3. Having heard Mr. Alok Thakkar, learned advocate on
behalf of Mr. K.S. Chandrani for the applicant, Mr. Shakti
Jadeja, learned advocate for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3
and Mr. Bhargav Pandya, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor for the respondent State.
4. The short issue is with regard to amount of
maintenance given to the tune of Rs.15000/- per month to
respondent No.2 and Rs.5000/- to respondent No.3. It is
not in dispute with regards to the fact the Income Tax
return is being filed by the applicant, wherein it is
confirmed that there is an income of Rs.40,000/- per
month. It is also not in dispute that the applicant was
working as Manager in Mahi Dairy, Rajkot on the basis of
being qualified Software Engineer having studied from
Germany. All these aspects have been accepted by the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/797/2016 ORDER DATED: 04/04/2025
undefined
applicant in his deposition.
5. The revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 of the
Code is a limited jurisdiction exercisable if the courts
below has committed a manifest illegality or the findings
are perverse and based on misreading of evidence
resulting into miscarriage of justice. The High Court
under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. cannot exercise
powers as an appellate Court and while exercising the
revisional power, cannot undertake in-depth and minute
re-examination of entire evidence and upset findings
which are based on facts. However, it would be
impermissible to taken an in-depth re-examination of the
evidence recorded by the appellate Court. There is no
argument which canvasses if there was any illegality or
any error of law by the learned Family Court. Therefore,
when the revisional power under the Code of Criminal
Procedure cannot be exercised in a routine and casual
manner and cannot go into re-appreciation of evidence,
there is nothing on record which substantiate any
manifest illegality in the order passed by the learned
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/797/2016 ORDER DATED: 04/04/2025
undefined
Family Court. In view of the same, the present revision
application is without any merits and, therefore, liable to
be dismissed.
With the aforesaid observations, the present revision
application is dismissed. Rule is discharged. No order as
to costs.
(PRANAV TRIVEDI,J)
SAJ GEORGE
