[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
Shaikh Rahimmiya Bhatamiya vs State Of Gujarat on 28 April, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/466/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/04/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (AGAINST ORDER PASSED BY
SUBORDINATE COURT) NO. 466 of 2013
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
√
==========================================================
SHAIKH RAHIMMIYA BHATAMIYA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR PRATIK B BAROT(3711) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR ROHAN RAVAL, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 28/04/2026
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
applicant has prayed for quashing and setting aside of the order dated
20.07.2013 passed below Exh.4 in Criminal Revision Application No.23 of
2013 by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Mahesana at Visnagar.
[2.0] Heard learned advocate Mr. Piyush Trivedi for learned advocate Mr.
Pratik Barot for the applicant and learned APP for respondent No.1 - State
of Gujarat.
[3.0] Perusing the record, it appears that in the proceedings of Criminal
Revision Application No.369/2011, on 05.07.2013, the learned Magistrate
has been pleased to pass an order of sentencing the applicant - accused to
undergo simple imprisonment for 200 days towards arrears of maintenance
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/466/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/04/2026
undefined
of 20 months i.e. Rs.40,500/-. It is undisputed and admitted fact that the
order passed in Criminal Revision Application No.369/2011 dated
05.07.2013 was passed to recover the amount of arrears of maintenance
pursuant to the order passed by the learned Magistrate in Criminal Misc.
Application No.26/2010 on 22.01.2010 whereby the learned Magistrate
directed the applicant to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.2,000/-. However,
till date, said order is in force and is not annulled or modified by the learned
appellate Court. It is pertinent to note that application under Section 125(3)
of the CrPC was filed by the wife for recovery of arrears of maintenance and
after giving opportunity of hearing to the present applicant, the order was
passed however, the applicant failed to pay the maintenance.
[4.0] It goes without saying that proceeding under Section 125(3) of the
CrPC is a mode to recover the amount of arrears of maintenance and
learned Magistrate as well as the learned Revisional Court have properly
exercised the jurisdiction and liability to pay the maintenance as well as
arrears of maintenance is fixed on the present applicant in view of decision
of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Poongadi and Anr. vs. Thangavel
reported in (2013)10 SCC 618, which does not call for any interference at
the hands of this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. There are
concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below and even
quantum of punishment is also proportionate to the amount of arrears of
maintenance of 20 months. It is submitted that during the pendency of the
present application, the applicant has deposited Rs.50,000/- however, the
fact remains that remaining arrears of maintenance remains as it is.
[4.1] 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 trial
Court, it appears that learned trial Court has already appreciated the facts
and finding of fact not to be upset unless it is found perverse and finding of
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/466/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/04/2026
undefined
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 trial Court and upheld by the learned revisional Court. Both the
Courts have properly assigned reasons and given the finding based on
evidence led and hence also, no interference at the hands of this Court in
exercise of revisional jurisdiction is required.
[4.2] It would 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, sentence
or order, recorded or passed, 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 Courts below have recorded the finding
of fact, the question of re-appreciation of evidence by the Court does not
arise unless it is found to be totally perverse.
[5.0] In wake of aforesaid conspectus, present revision application fails and
stands dismissed. Rule is hereby discharged. Interim relief granted earlier
stands vacated forthwith.
Sd/-
(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR, J.)
Ajay
