Gujarat High Court
Patel Jayeshbhai Govindbhai vs State Of Gujarat on 22 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/5343/2015 ORDER DATED: 22/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (FOR MAINTENANCE) NO. 5343 of
2015
==========================================================
PATEL JAYESHBHAI GOVINDBHAI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS SHALINI S MAIR(2681) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
AADITYA D BHATT(8580) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
CHANDNI S JOSHI(9490) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR. CHINTAN DAVE, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
Date : 22/09/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard learned advocate for the petitioner-husband, learned
advocate for the respondent-wife, and learned APP for the
respondent-State.
2. The present petition is preferred under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, assailing the propriety and legality of the
concurrent findings rendered by the Courts below in proceedings
under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
3. It emerges from the record that the respondent-wife instituted
Criminal Misc. Application No. 548 of 2009 before the learned 2nd
Additional Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kalol,
seeking maintenance. The petitioner-husband raised various
defences, inter alia contending that the respondent-wife had
committed fraud upon him, inasmuch as, without obtaining a decree
of divorce from her earlier husband, she purported to contract
marriage with the petitioner. The learned Trial Court, after due
consideration, addressed this contention under Issue No. 1 of its
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/5343/2015 ORDER DATED: 22/09/2025
undefined
judgment, yet proceeded to allow the claim of maintenance by
directing payment of ₹5,000/- per month from the date of the
petition till realization.
4. Aggrieved, the petitioner carried the matter in revision under
Section 397 Cr.P.C. before the learned Sessions Court. However, the
Revisional Court, after independent appraisal, upheld the order of
the learned Trial Court and affirmed the maintenance awarded.
5. Thus, the petitioner has now invoked the supervisory
jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227, questioning the
concurrent findings of both the Courts below.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner-husband has strenuously
contended that the respondent-wife has perpetrated fraud by
suppressing her subsisting marital status, inasmuch as she had never
obtained a decree of divorce from her earlier husband. It is further
urged that, having abandoned the matrimonial consortium with the
present petitioner, she has allegedly contracted yet another marriage
with a third person, which, according to the petitioner, disentitles her
to any claim of maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973.
7. On the strength of the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel
for the petitioner prayed for allowing the present petition.
8. This Court, however, finds itself wholly disinclined to exercise
the supervisory jurisdiction vested under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, inasmuch as no miscarriage of justice appears
to have been occasioned by the Courts below. The present petition is
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/5343/2015 ORDER DATED: 22/09/2025
undefined
nothing but a stratagem to stall the lawful order of maintenance
passed under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973,
and, in the considered opinion of this Court, deserves to be repelled
with imposition of exemplary costs. A destitute lady has been left
without succour since the year 2009, and the very issue now sought
to be agitated has already been repeatedly raised and negatived
before the learned Courts below.
9. It is pertinent to note that on the earlier occasion, vide order
dated 16.09.2025, this Court had already observed and directed as
under:-
"The petitioner to file affidavit before this Court as to how
much amount has been paid towards maintenance to comply
order passed in Criminal Misc. Application No.548 of 2009 and
confirmed in Criminal Revision Application No.11 of 2015
before next date, failing which the matter shall stand dismissed.
Stand over to 22.09.2025. To be listed in separate board.
Interim relief granted earlier, if any, to continue till then.
It is made clear that on the next date regardless of presence
of learned advocate for the petitioner, the matter shall proceed
further."
10. Pursuant thereto, notwithstanding the specific directions of this
Court, the petitioner has filed an affidavit of a wholly divergent
character, which has nevertheless been taken on record. In essence, it
is manifest that such action constitutes a deliberate attempt to place a
destitute lady in a precarious and vulnerable position. The petitioner
exhibits a marked recalcitrance, evincing an unwillingness to comply
with the lawful orders of the learned trial Court, and has failed to
deposit a single rupee in accordance with the directions issued by the
Courts below.
11. In the aforesaid circumstances, this Court discerns no
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/5343/2015 ORDER DATED: 22/09/2025
undefined
justification to interfere with the concurrent findings recorded by the
learned Courts below, which remain unimpeachable and in
consonance with the principles of justice.
12. With profit, I may refer to the judgment of Hon'ble Apex
Court in case of Garment Crafts Vs. Prakash Chand Goel
reported in (2022) 4 SCC 181, wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court
has discussed the nature of scope of the supervisory jurisdiction
under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Relevant discussion
in para 15 and 16 reads thus:-
"15. Having heard the counsel for the parties, we are clearly of the
view that the impugned order is contrary to law and cannot be
sustained for several reasons, but primarily for deviation from the
limited jurisdiction exercised by the High Court under Article 227 of
the Constitution of India. The High Court exercising supervisory
jurisdiction does not act as a court of first appeal to reappreciate,
reweigh the evidence or facts upon which the determination under
challenge is based. Supervisory jurisdiction is not to correct every
error of fact or even a legal flaw when the final finding is justified or
can be supported. The High Court is not to substitute its own
decision on facts and conclusion, for that of the inferior court or
tribunal [Celina Coelho Pereira (Ms) and Others v. Ulhas
Mahabaleshwar Kholkar and Others, (2010) 1 SCC 217]. The
jurisdiction exercised is in the nature of correctional1 jurisdiction to
set right grave dereliction of duty or flagrant abuse, violation of
fundamental principles of law or justice. The power under Article
227 is exercised sparingly in appropriate cases, like when there is no
evidence at all to justify, or the finding is so perverse that no
reasonable person can possibly come to such a conclusion that the
court or tribunal has come to. It is axiomatic that such discretionary
relief must be exercised to ensure there is no miscarriage of justice.
16. Explaining the scope of jurisdiction under Article 227, this Court
in Estralla Rubber v. Dass Estate (P) Ltd., (2001) 8 SCC 97 has
observed:-
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/5343/2015 ORDER DATED: 22/09/2025
undefined
"6. The scope and ambit of exercise of power and jurisdiction by a
High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is
examined and explained in a number of decisions of this Court. The
exercise of power under this article involves a duty on the High
Court to keep inferior courts and tribunals within the bounds of
their authority and to see that they do the duty expected or required
of them in a legal manner. The High Court is not vested with any
unlimited prerogative to correct all kinds of hardship or wrong
decisions made within the limits of the jurisdiction of the
subordinate courts or tribunals. Exercise of this power and
interfering with the orders of the courts or tribunals is restricted to
cases of serious dereliction of duty and flagrant violation of
fundamental principles of law or justice, where if the High Court
does not interfere, a grave injustice remains uncorrected. It is also
well settled that the High Court while acting under this article
cannot exercise its power as an appellate court or substitute its own
judgment in place of that of the subordinate court to correct an
error, which is not apparent on the face of the record. The High
Court can set aside or ignore the findings of facts of an inferior
court or tribunal, if there is no evidence at all to justify or the
finding is so perverse, that no reasonable person can possibly come
to such a conclusion, which the court or tribunal has come to."
13. It is manifest that the present petition constitutes a palpable
abuse of the process of law, the petitioner having sought to employ
this Court as a vehicle to circumvent the effect of the order duly
passed by the learned Courts below. Such intransigent and
contumacious conduct on the part of the petitioner is wholly
deprecated. Consequently, the petition stands DISMISSED, with a
cost of ₹15,000/- imposed upon the petitioner in favour of
respondent no.2, to be deposited within a period of four weeks from
the date hereof. In the event of default, the said amount shall be
recoverable as arrears of maintenance under Section 125 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure.
(J. C. DOSHI,J)
MANISH MISHRA
