Ajmeri Ezazbhai Ahemadbhai vs State Of Gujarat on 24 April, 2026

                                                                                                                 NEUTRAL CITATION




                           R/CR.RA/435/2023                                      JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2026

                                                                                                                  undefined




                                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                       R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (FOR MAINTENANCE) NO. 435 of
                                                   2023


                      FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


                      HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
                      ==========================================================

                                   Approved for Reporting                       Yes           No

                      ==========================================================
                                                 AJMERI EZAZBHAI AHEMADBHAI
                                                            Versus
                                                   STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
                      ==========================================================
                      Appearance:
                      MR N P PANDYA(11241) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
                      MR ROHAN RAVAL, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
                      RAZIN S ZEENA(9377) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
                      ==========================================================

                         CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR

                                                            Date : 24/04/2026

                                                              JUDGMENT

Today, when the matter is called out, learned counsel for the applicant remained absent. Even on the earlier dates, none had remained present on behalf of the applicant. Therefore, it clearly transpires that the applicant is not interested in prosecuting the present matter. Hence, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Taj Mohammad Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, in Criminal Appeal No.2421 of 2023, decided on 11.08.2023, this Court has considered the averments made in the present revision application as well as the material placed on record and has proceeded to decide the matter in absence of the applicant based on available material on record..

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.RA/435/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2026

undefined

1) Present criminal revision application under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "Cr.P.C") has been preferred by the applicant herein - husband requesting to quash and set aside the order dated 19.04.2019 passed by the learned Family Court, Rajkot, in Criminal Misc. Application No.308/2017, whereby the applicant is directed to pay Rs.4,000/ per month towards monthly maintenance to respondent No.2 from the date of application.

2) The brief facts of the case are that the applicant and respondent No.2 got married as per the Muslim rites and rituals. After the marriage, the husband had beaten the wife and through her out of the house and asked her not to come back again and thereafter, never taken care of her. Therefore, the wife has initiated proceedings under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. for maintenance. The learned Family Court vide order dated 19.04.2019 allowed the application of the wife and ordered the applicant to pay Rs.4,000/- p.m towards maintenance to the wife. Being aggrieved by the same, present revision application is filed.

3) Perusing the record, it appears that the husband has filed present application on the ground that the applicant is earning Rs. 40,000/- monthly and the present applicant or his family members never insist resp. No.2 to leave the home. The resp. No.2 had left home at her own will. It is also submitted that the applicant is ready and willing to stay with resp. No.2 i.e. wife and the applicant had not deserted her and she left the home of the applicant willingly. That the resp. No.2 is earning Rs.40,000/- by

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.RA/435/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2026

undefined

doing beauty parlour work and therefore, she is in a position to maintain herself and therefore, the applicant has filed this application with a prayer that, the matter may be remanded back to the trial court for fresh hearing after granting sufficient opportunity of hearing to canvass arguments and led the evidence to show that wife is earning and matter may be decided by party hearing on merits. Initially the applicant was trying to settle the dispute therefore, the applicant did not challenge the order but recently it came to the knowledge of the applicant that the wife is working and earning handsome amount and therefore, in light of the Judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kusum Bhatia V/s. Sagar Sethi wherein the Hon'ble Apex court had declined to award any maintenance to the wife, who was working with sufficient income. It is also submitted that the respondent has stated in the application that, marriage was solemnized on 17-02-2014 and the applicant had taken care of her for a period of 3 months and she filed the complaint u/s. 125 on 22-03-2017 while stating that, husband had started harassing her but she did not register any complaint for the long years and therefore she is not liable to any compensation towards the mental and physical harassment.

4) It also appears that denying the income of Rs.40,000/- p.m, the applicant has stated that he is earning Rs.5,000/- by doing cotton weaving works, but no evidence with respect is produced on record. Learned Family court has observed that the husband has suppressed his income and hence, adverse inference under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act has been drawn. Considering more than one profession, in absence of any further

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.RA/435/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2026

undefined

responsibility to maintain any family, learned Family Court has been pleased to award maintenance of Rs.4,000/- to the wife. Therefore, learned trial Court after appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case and arguments made therein, rightly fixed the maintenance of Rs.4,000/- to the respondent herein. Hence, this Court is of considered view that no interference is required more particularly in view of the evidence led before the learned Family Judge. Herein, no any evidence led before the learned Family Judge to show that wife is able to maintain herself and having income or engaged in any gainful profession. Even, merely wife is capable of earning is not a sufficient ground to reduce the maintenance. Herein, no any evidence is there on record which suggests that respondent - wife is working. In this regard, reference is required to be made to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shailja and Another vs. Khobbanna reported in (2018) 12 SCC 199; Sunita Kachwaha & Ors. vs. Anil Kachwaha reported in (2014)16 SCC 715 as well as Chaturbhuj vs. Sita Bai reported in (2008) 2 SCC 316, wherein it has been observed and held as under:

"Where the wife was surviving by begging, it would not amount to her ability to maintain herself. It can also be not said that the wife has been capable of earning but she was not making an effort to earn. Whether the deserted wife was unable to maintain herself, has to be decided on the basis of the material placed on record. Where the personal income of the wife is insufficient she can claim maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The test is whether the wife is in a position to maintain herself in the way she was used to in the place of her husband. The wife should be in a position to maintain standard of living which is neither luxurious nor penurious but what is consistent with status of a family. The expression "unable to maintain herself"

does not mean that the wife must be absolutely destitute before she can apply for maintenance under Section 125 CrPC."

5) Further, the object of proceeding under Section 125 of the CrPC is beneficial legislation. Further, it is also required to be noted

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.RA/435/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2026

undefined

that neither the applicant has produced any evidence regarding the earning of his wife nor her means to sustain herself, before the learned Family Judge. From the various judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it can be said that the husband cannot escape from his liability to maintain his wife or children because it is the legal and ethical duty of the husband to maintain them. The law is clear that husband is bound to maintain his wife and minor children and if a husband is negligent and does not pay maintenance to wife or children as awarded by the Court, then how such a person is entitled to the relief claimed by him in the matrimonial proceedings. In this regard, reference is required to be made to the decision of this Court in the case of Miteshbhai Dinkarbhai Makvana vs. State of Gujarat reported in 2025(0) AIJEL-HC 250224. Further, in the case of Bhuwan Mohan Singh vs. Meena & Ors. reported in (2015) 6 SCC 353 and Anju Garg and Ors. vs. Deepak Kumar Garg reported in 2022 SCC OnLine (SC) 1314, it is held that it is the sacrosanct duty of the husband to provide financial support to the wife and minor children, the husband was required to earn money even by physical labour, if he is able-bodied, and could not avoid his obligation, except on any legally permissible ground mentioned in the statute. Therefore, the argument canvassed by the learned advocate for the applicant that the applicant is unable to maintain his wife - respondent herein and unable to pay the maintenance is not acceptable. It goes without saying that it is the duty of the husband to maintain his wife and children. In this regard, reference is required to be made to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Anju Garg vs. Deepak Kumar Garg reported in 2022 SCC OnLine (SC) 1314. Further, in the case of Rajnesh vs. Neha & Ors. reported in (2021)2 SCC 324,

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.RA/435/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2026

undefined

the Hon'ble Supreme relying on its decision in the case of Reema Salkan vs. Sumer Singh Salkan reported in (2019) 12 SCC 303 observed that the Court must have due regard to the standard of living of the husband, as well as the spiralling inflation rates and high costs of living. The plea of the husband that he does not possess any source of income ipso facto does not absolve him of his moral duty to maintain his wife if he is able bodied and has educational qualifications. Therefore also, the learned Family Judge has not committed any error which calls for interference at the hands of this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.

6) Further, it is needless to say that 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 the learned Family Judge, it appears that learned Family Judge has already appreciated the facts and finding of fact 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 the learned Family Judge. The learned Family Judge has assigned well-founded reasons while awarding the maintenance to the respondent - wife and such findings are based on evidence led before it and hence also, no interference at the hands of this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction is required.

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.RA/435/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2026

undefined

7) It would also be appropriate to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Malkeet Singh Gill vs. State of Chhatisgarh reported in (2022)8 SCC 204 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that section 397/401 CrPC vests jurisdiction for the purpose of satisfying itself or himself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding and as to the regularity of any proceedings of such inferior Court. The object of the provision is to set right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction of law. There has to be well-founded error which is to be determined on the merits of individual case. It is also well settled that while considering the same, the Revisional Court does not dwell at length upon the facts and evidence of the case to reverse those findings. It is a settled legal proposition that if the Court below recorded the finding of fact, the question of re-appreciation of evidence by the revisional Court does not arise unless it is found to be totally perverse.

8) In wake of aforesaid conspectus, present criminal revision application stands dismissed. Resultantly, the impugned order dated 19.04.2019 passed by the learned Family Court, Rajkot, in Criminal Misc. Application No.308/2017 is hereby confirmed. Allied Misc. Applications, if any, stand disposed of.

(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J)

SUCHIT