Gujarat High Court
Pravinbhai Maganbhai Solanki vs State Of Gujarat on 25 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/408/2019 ORDER DATED: 25/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (FOR MAINTENANCE) NO. 408 of
2019
==========================================================
PRAVINBHAI MAGANBHAI SOLANKI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR HARSHEEL D SHUKLA(6158) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS VRUNDA SHAH APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 3
VASIMRAJA A KURESHI(8609) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI
Date : 25/07/2025
ORAL ORDER
Order dated 12/12/2018 passed in CR.MA No.502 of 2017 by the
learned Family Court, Vadodara ordering to pay the maintenance of
Rs.4,000/- to respondent No.2 and Rs.1,000/- to respondent No.3 minor
totalling Rs.5,000/- under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
(for short 'Cr.PC') is sought to be assailed in this revision application
under the provisions of Section 397 r/w Section 401 of the Cr. PC.
2. The short facts of the case are that marriage of the petitioner and
respondent no.2 got solemnized on 01/04/2013 as per the Hindu rituals
and out of the said wedlock, child named Vedant was borne. It is the case
of the petitioner that respondent no.2 again got pregnant and therefore,
went to her parental home; where she got aborted; however thereafter, did
not return back to matrimonial home and thereby deserted the petitioner.
It is also the case of the petitioner that several efforts were made to
pursue respondent No.2 to return back; but all efforts proved in vain and
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/408/2019 ORDER DATED: 25/07/2025
undefined
therefore, petitioner moved an application under Section 9 of the Hindu
Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights vide HMP No.219 of 2016.
2.1 As an offshoot to the said proceedings, the respondent No.2 filed
an application under Section 125 of the Cr.PC seeking maintenance;
wherein initially by interim maintenance an amount of Rs.3,000/- and
Rs.1500/- was granted to respondent No.2 and 3 respectively which
ultimately by impugned order granted to Rs.4,000/- and Rs.1,000/-.
3. Heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties.
4. Learned advocate for the petitioner - husband Mr.Shukla has at the
outset submitted that the petitioner was and is ready and willing to take
back and to reside with the respondent No.2-wife; however the
respondent no.2-wife did not return and has not shown any willingness to
live together again. It is submitted that several efforts were made to
pursue respondent No.2 to return back at parental home; but she did not
come back and therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner had deserted
the wife. It is submitted by learned advocate for the petitioner that
respondent no.2-wife had left the petitioner; without any plausible and
proper cause and therefore the respondent no.2-wife is not entitled any
relief in the form of maintenance. Learned advocate for the petitioner has
submitted that learned Family Court has failed to notice such aspect and
therefore, he would request to quash and set aside the impugned order of
awarding maintenance.
5. Per contra, learned advocate for the respondent No.2 Mr.Kureshi
would submit that learned Family Court has thoroughly examined the
issue as agitated by the respondent No.2 - wife and considering the
material placed before the Court, the impugned order has rightly been
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/408/2019 ORDER DATED: 25/07/2025
undefined
passed. He would therefore submit to dismiss the present revision
application.
6. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective
parties and examined the impugned order, the facts which are not in
dispute are that marriage of the petitioner and respondent no.2 got
solemnized on 01/04/2013 and out of said wedlock, the parties were
blessed with baby child named Vedant. As per say of the respondent
no.2-wife, she was subjected to physical and mental cruelty and was not
permitted to attend social events and this was informed by her to her
mother. Even several efforts were made for conciliation; but that did not
work and therefore, respondent no.2 compelled to live separately. It is
also averred by the wife that since brother of the petitioner was not
having any child, a pressure was created on her to give her son by way
adoption to them and thus respondent No.2 was subjected to such mental
torture.
7. The contention of the learned advocate that the petitioner was and
is ready and willing to accept the respondent no.2 does not find any leg to
stand in view of the fact that initially, the respondent no.2 - wife was
deserted rather driven out at her matrimonial home by the petitioner and
she got custody of the child only after the orders passed by the learned
Magisterial Court. It also transpires from the record that petitioner-
husband was earning Rs.20,000/- monthly having no other responsibility
to maintain in the family and therefore, the learned Family Court has
rightly awarded the maintenance to the wife and child. It appears that
learned Family Court has considered the fact that in view of the evidence
led by the respondent no.2, it appears that the petitioner-husband has not
made any efforts to start their marriage life and in spite of there being
sufficient source of income, he did not care to pay maintenance and this
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/408/2019 ORDER DATED: 25/07/2025
undefined
fact was found to have been proved before the learned Family Court. This
Court finds complete agreement with the said finding. Nothing sort of any
material to show bona-fide of the petitioner that he was and is ready to
call her back to stay with him and a mere statement is made by the
petitioner, which does not find any substance in absence of any cogent
material.
8. At this stage, I may refer to judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case Rajnesh v/s. Neha [2021(2) SCC 324], wherein, in para 13 and 14, it
has been held as under :-
"Guidelines / Directions on Maintenance
13. Maintenance laws have been enacted as a measure of social
justice to provide recourse to dependent wives and children for
their financial support, so as to prevent them from falling into
destitution and vagrancy. Article 15(3) of the Constitution of India
provides that :
"15(3) Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from
making any special provision for women and children."
Article 15 (3) reinforced by Article 39 of the Constitution of
India, which envisages a positive role for the State in
fostering change towards the empowerment of women, led to
the enactment of various legislations from time to time.
14. Justice Krishna Iyer in his judgment in Captain Ramesh
Chander Kaushal v Mrs. Veena Kaushal & Ors.1 held that the
object of maintenance laws is :
"9. This provision is a measure of social justice and
specially enacted to protect women and children and falls
within the constitutional sweep of Article 15(3) reinforced by
Article 39. We have no doubt that sections of statutes calling
for construction by courts are not petrified print but vibrant
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/408/2019 ORDER DATED: 25/07/2025
undefined
words with social functions to fulfil. The brooding presence
of the constitutional empathy for the weaker sections like
women and children must inform interpretation if it has to
have social relevance. So viewed, it is possible to be
selective in picking out that interpretation out of two
alternatives which advances the cause -- the cause of the
derelicts."
9. For the foregoing reasons, the present revision application fails and
is dismissed with no order as to costs. Rule is discharged.
(R. T. VACHHANI, J)
sompura
