Gujarat High Court
Qutbuddin Iqbalbhai Luhar vs Chandaniben D/O Mohmmad Hussain Sheikh ... on 29 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/692/2025 ORDER DATED: 29/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (FOR
MAINTENANCE) NO. 692 of 2025
=========================================
QUTBUDDIN IQBALBHAI LUHAR
Versus
CHANDANIBEN D/O MOHMMAD HUSSAIN SHEIKH W/O
QUTBUDDIN IQBALBHAI LUHAR & ANR.
=========================================
Appearance:
MS. NIDHI P LATHIGARA(17347) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR JV VAGHELA(5809) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR NIRAJ SHARMA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 2
=========================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI
Date : 29/09/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. By way of filing the present application, the applicant has
invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Sections 397
and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, challenging the
judgment and order passed by the learned Family Court, Dahod in
Criminal Misc. Application No. 296 of 2023. By the said judgment,
the learned Family Court has partly allowed the application moved
by the contesting respondent-wife, awarding maintenance of Rs.
5,000/- per month from the date of the application. The order
further directed consequential costs of Rs. 2,000/-, with
clarification that the amount so awarded would be subject to set-off
and adjustment against any other order of maintenance, if passed
under any law for the time being in force.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/692/2025 ORDER DATED: 29/09/2025
undefined
2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the present revision
application are that the marriage between the present applicant-
husband and the contesting respondent-wife came to be
solemnized on 04/11/2022 at Dahod as per the rites and rituals of
Muslim Shariyat. Pursuant to the marriage, the respondent-wife,
along with her daughter from her previous wedlock, started
residing with the applicant-husband in a rented accommodation at
Dahod. It is the specific case of the applicant that the relationship
between the parties was not new, as they were acquainted and in
contact with each other for the last more than eight years prior to
the solemnization of marriage. However, according to the
applicant, due to certain matrimonial differences and disputes, the
relationship between the parties deteriorated, which ultimately
gave rise to several litigation pending between them before
different forums.
3. On being served with the notice of the proceedings initiated
by the respondent-wife before the learned Family Court, Dahod,
the applicant appeared and filed his detailed objections. In his
objections, the applicant denied the allegations made by the
respondent-wife in her application. It was inter alia contended that
the applicant is working as a daily wage labourer and has very
limited means of livelihood. It was further contended that he also
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/692/2025 ORDER DATED: 29/09/2025
undefined
has the responsibility to maintain his aged mother and, therefore,
does not possess the financial capacity to pay the exorbitant
amount of maintenance claimed by the respondent-wife. The
applicant also denied the allegations that he had neglected or
refused to maintain the respondent-wife and contended that the
respondent herself had left the matrimonial home without any
justifiable reason.
4. The findings of the issues, after considering the pleadings,
evidence on record, and the reasons assigned here-in-below, are as
under:
1. Issue No. 1: Whether the Applicant-Wife proves that
despite the Respondent having sufficient means, he has
neglected to provide maintenance to the Applicants? --
In the affirmative.
2. Issue No. 2: Whether the Applicant-Wife proves that
the Applicants are entitled to receive maintenance while
living separately from the Respondent? If yes, then how
much? -- In the affirmative, as per the final order.
3. Issue No. 3: What order? -- As per the final order.
The discussion on the grounds for the findings on the
aforesaid issue no.1 is as under:-
"Whether the Applicant-Wife proves that, despite the
Respondent having sufficient means, he has
neglected to provide maintenance to the Applicant.
-- Learned Advocate Shri D. H. Meghwani for the
Applicant submitted that the Applicant and the
Respondent were acquainted for several years and,
after her divorce on 02/03/2022, they entered into a
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/692/2025 ORDER DATED: 29/09/2025
undefined
Nikah on 04/11/2022, evidenced by the Nikahnama
(Exh. 37) duly signed by both parties, witnesses, and
the Maulana. Despite such marriage, the Respondent
has failed and neglected to maintain the Applicant.
Learned Advocate Shri S. V. Malek for the
Respondent contended that the Nikahnama is
fabricated and that the Applicant failed to observe
the complete iddat period, alleging that she
habitually files false complaints and extorts money;
however, no evidence has been produced in support
of these allegations, nor has any challenge been
raised against the genuineness of the Nikahnama.
From the evidence, it stands proved that the
Applicant and the Respondent lived together as
husband and wife after their Nikah, and that the
divorce from the Applicant's first husband took place
eight months prior thereto, thereby ruling out any
irregularity under Muslim Law. The testimonies of
the witnesses and the Maulana who solemnized the
marriage fully corroborate the Applicant's case,
whereas the Respondent has failed to substantiate
any of his claims. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena [(2015) 6 SCC
353], K.A. Abdul Jaleel v. T.A. Shahida [(2003)
SCC (Cri) 810], Samima Faruq v. Shahid Khan
[AIR 2015 SC 2025], and Savitaben Somabhai
Bhatiya v. State of Gujarat [AIR 2005 SCW
1601] has held that maintenance under Section 125
of the Cr.P.C. is a measure of social justice and that
a husband's obligation to maintain his wife is of the
highest order. These authorities further emphasize
that such proceedings should be interpreted liberally
to prevent destitution and ensure a woman's right to
live with dignity. Applying these principles, it is
evident that the Respondent, despite having
sufficient means, has failed and neglected to
maintain the Applicant and has made baseless
allegations to evade responsibility. Hence, Issue No.
1 is answered in the affirmative, holding that the
Applicant has proved that the Respondent has
neglected to maintain her despite having sufficient
means."
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/692/2025 ORDER DATED: 29/09/2025
undefined
5. Upon appreciation of the evidence, the learned Family Court
recorded its findings that it is not in dispute that the marriage
between the applicant and the respondent-wife was duly
solemnized and that they resided together as husband and wife.
The Court further observed that the allegations of neglect and
desertion made by the respondent-wife were specifically denied by
the applicant, but no substantial material had been produced by
the applicant to support his denial.
6. The learned Family Court further considered the lifestyle of
the parties, their status, and the surrounding circumstances, and
came to the conclusion that the respondent-wife was entitled to
maintenance. While assessing the quantum, the Court also
considered the capacity of the applicant to earn and maintain his
family, and thereafter partly allowed the application by awarding
maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- per month to the respondent-wife,
along with costs of Rs. 2,000/-. The reasons for such findings are
elaborately discussed in the impugned judgment, particularly in
paragraphs 13, 14 and 15 which reads as under :
(13) In the judgment of the case of 2010(3)
GCD 2566 Pantheshbhai Dashratbhai Patel v.
Darshanaben P. Patel, the Hon'ble High Court of
Gujarat has held that:
"The facts on record indicated that standard of living
of the husband was very comfortable. The husband
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/692/2025 ORDER DATED: 29/09/2025
undefined
had not cooperated in disclosing his true income. The
wife cannot be deprived of her basic necessities."
(13/1) In the judgment of the case of Amit
Ramchandra Savlani v. Chitra Amit Savlani,
2017(2) GLR 1703, the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat
has held that:
"Maintenance includes all the necessities of the wife
and children. The wife and children are entitled to
live with the same status as the husband/father lives.
Along with the husband's income, the basic
requirements of the wife must also be considered by
the Court. The husband was leading a luxurious life,
carrying on business with his father and enjoyed a
higher standard of living than that of his wife and
children. Facts disclosed in income tax returns by
themselves cannot be treated as credible evidence."
(14) In view of the principles laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble High Court in
the aforesaid judgments, while passing an order for
maintenance, the Court must consider the husband's
income, his capacity to maintain, the status of both
parties, the basic requirements of livelihood, the sources
of income of the Applicant and the Respondent,
prevailing inflation and the value of money. Considering
these principles, the circumstances on record, the
Respondent's income and responsibilities, current
inflation and the minimum expenses required for
maintenance, I deem it just and proper to direct the
Respondent to pay Rs.5,000 per month to the Applicant
towards maintenance, with effect from the date of filing
of the application. Accordingly, Issue No.2 is answered
in the affirmative.
(15) Since the present application has been
necessitated on account of the default by the
Respondent and since from the date of filing of the
application, i.e., 08/12/2023, the Respondent has made
no arrangement for the maintenance of the Applicant, it
appears just and proper that the Respondent be directed
to pay the costs of this application to the Applicant, with
the order taking effect from the date of the application.
Therefore, in the interest of justice, with respect to Issue
No.3, the following final order is passed.
7. On a careful perusal of the record of the case, the pleadings
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/692/2025 ORDER DATED: 29/09/2025
undefined
of the parties, and the reasoning assigned by the learned Family
Court, this Court does not find any illegality, perversity, or error
apparent on the face of the record which would warrant
interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. The learned
Family Court has appreciated the material on record in its proper
perspective and has rightly come to the conclusion that the
respondent-wife is entitled to maintenance in order to sustain
herself with dignity.
8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the impugned judgment and order passed
by the learned Family Court, Dahod, does not suffer from any
infirmity requiring interference.
9. The learned Family Court has awarded the maintenance in
favour of deserted/neglected wife so that the wife can live with the
manner as she likes to which she was accustomed/living before she
was deserted/neglected. Thus, the Court is required to see that the
husband makes provision for food and clothing of the wife and
further to consider basic need of deserted wife would be fulfilled.
In other words, her living need not be luxurious, but
simultaneously, she should not be left to live in discomfort. The
husband has tendency either to withhold material evidence of his
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/692/2025 ORDER DATED: 29/09/2025
undefined
income or to disclose part material evidence as to his income. It is
needless to say that when wife comes before the Court with a plea
that she is entitled to get maintenance from her husband, before
arriving at a finding whether she is entitled for maintenance or
not, the Court must put efforts to find out truth of the matter.
Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is a measure
of social justice and specially enacted to protect woman, who is
deserted/neglected by the husband, who is bound to maintain her.
10. The learned Family Court, upon considering the pleadings
and evidence on record adduced by the parties, came to the
conclusion that the husband has deserted/neglected the wife, the
Court is required to order proper maintenance amount in the facts
and circumstances of the case on hand. So, only issue here comes
on hand is whether the learned Family Court has committed an
error in awarding maintenance amount, as aforesaid.
11. In absence of legal infirmity either in the procedure or in the
conduct of trial, there is no justification for this Court to interfere
in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. The High Court is not
required to re-appreciate the evidence to reach a finding different
from the Family Court. In absence of manifest illegality resulting in
grave miscarriage of justice, exercise of revision jurisdiction u/s
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/692/2025 ORDER DATED: 29/09/2025
undefined
397 r/w section 401 of the Code, in such case, is not warranted.
12. In view of the foregoing discussion, and considering the
conduct of the applicant as well as the cogent reasoning assigned
by the learned Family Court, this Court finds no valid ground to
interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, the present
revision application stands dismissed.
(R. T. VACHHANI, J)
Kaushal Rathod
