[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
Rupaben W/O Pareshkumar Pandya vs State Of Gujarat on 21 April, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/515/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/04/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (FOR MAINTENANCE) NO. 515
of 2016
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
√
==========================================================
RUPABEN W/O PARESHKUMAR PANDYA & ANR.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
HCLS COMMITTEE(4998) for the applicants(s) No. 1,2
MR PV PATADIYA(5924) for the applicants(s) No. 1,2
MR SANJAY PRAJAPATI(3227) for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3,4
MR ROHAN RAVAL, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 21/04/2026
JUDGMENT
[1.0] By way of present revision application under Section 397 read
with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short
"CrPC"), the applicants have prayed for quashing and setting aside of
the judgment and order dated 29.03.2014 rendered by the Judicial
Magistrate, First Class, Kapadvanj in Criminal Misc. Application
No.148/2012 as well as the judgment and order dated 27.01.2016
passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Kheda, District
Nadiad in Criminal Appeal No.44/2014.
[2.0] Heard learned advocate Mr. P.V. Patadiya for the applicants,
learned APP for respondent No.1 - State of Gujarat and learned
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/515/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/04/2026
undefined
advocate Mr. Sanjay Prajapati for the respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4.
[3.0] Having heard learned advocates appearing for the respective
parties, it appears that by way of present application, the applicants
have challenged the order dated 29.03.2014 passed by the learned
Magistrate in Criminal Misc. Application No.148/2012 filed by the
applicant under the provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic
Violence Act, 2005 seeking protection order as well as for getting the
maintenance. Having heard learned advocates for respective parties,
the learned Magistrate has been pleased to pass an order on
29.03.2014 awarding total maintenance of Rs.1600/- per month i.e.
Rs.1100 for applicant No.1 - wife and Rs.500/- for applicant No.2 -
minor. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the quantum of
maintenance, the applicants herein assailed the said order before the
learned Sessions Court by way of filing Criminal Appeal No.44/2014
and learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge modified the order of
maintenance and enhanced the maintenance amount to Rs.2500/- per
month i.e. Rs.1500 for applicant No.1 and Rs.1000/- for applicant No.2
- minor and ordered the respondent - husband to pay the same from
05.05.2014. Further aggrieved, the applicants have filed the present
revision application assailing the judgment and orders passed by both
the Courts below.
[4.0] Perusing the record, it appears that another application being
Criminal Misc. Application No.147/2012 was filed by the applicants
under Section 125 of the CrPC seeking maintenance wherein order of
maintenance came to be passed by the learned JMFC and said order
was assailed by the applicants before the appellate Court by way of
filing Criminal Appeal No.19/2014 wherein the appellate Court
confirmed the order passed by the learned Magistrate against which
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/515/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/04/2026
undefined
Special Criminal Application No.5034/2014 came to be filed and the
coordinate Bench vide order dated 11.08.2023 decided the said
petition coming to the conclusion that in total applicants are entitled
to get Rs.4100/- in total towards maintenance and admitted income of
the husband on record is Rs.5000/- and therefore, the coordinate
Bench did not interfere with the orders impugned therein however,
liberty was reserved in favor of the applicants to file appropriate
proceedings under Section 127 of the CrPC in case of change in
circumstances for enhancement of maintenance amount.
[5.0] In aforesaid backdrop, when a specific query is posed to the
learned advocate for the applicants as to whether applicants have
filed appropriate proceeding under Section 127 of the CrPC for
enhancement of maintenance, he has candidly admitted that no any
proceeding till date under Section 127 of the CrPC has been filed by
the applicants. Thus, it appears that the applicant No.1 is able to
maintain herself and her son and is satisfied with the amount of
maintenance.
[5.1] Even otherwise, the revisional jurisdiction can be exercised
where there is a palpable error or non-compliance with the provision
of law and where decision is completely erroneous and where the
judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily. Herein, if we examine the
reasons assigned by both the Courts below, it appears that facts are
appropriately appreciated and finding of fact are not to be upset
unless it is found perverse and finding of fact not to be substituted
keeping in mind the ratio of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Amit Kapoor vs. Ramesh Chander & Anr. reported in (2012)9 SCC
460 as no perversity is found in the reasons assigned by both the
Courts below and hence also, no interference at the hands of this
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/515/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/04/2026
undefined
Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction is required.
[6.0] In wake of aforesaid conspectus, present revision application
fails and stands dismissed. It goes without saying that it is always
open for the applicants to file appropriate proceedings under Section
127 of the CrPC for enhancement of the maintenance and once
maintenance is awarded under Section 125 of the CrPC, double
maintenance is not permissible and whatever amount is awarded
under the provision of section 125 of the CrPC is required to be given
set-off. Rule is hereby discharged.
Sd/-
(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR, J.)
Ajay
