[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
Jigneshbhai Niranjanbhai Makwana vs Truptiben Jigneshbhai Makwana on 30 April, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/623/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (FOR MAINTENANCE) NO. 623 of
2022
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
==========================================================
JIGNESHBHAI NIRANJANBHAI MAKWANA
Versus
TRUPTIBEN JIGNESHBHAI MAKWANA & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR ANVESH V VYAS(5654) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR SANJU J NAKHVA(11996) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS URVASHI K MEHTA(11469) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
MR ROHAN RAVAL, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 30/04/2026
JUDGMENT
1. By way of the present application, the applicant has
requested this Court to quash and set aside the judgment and
order dated 04.02.2022 passed by the learned 11 th Additional
Sessions Judge, Rajkot in CRA/258/2019.
2. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties.
3. The learned advocate for the applicant submits that the
impugned orders passed by the courts below are perverse,
arbitrary, and contrary to the settled principles of law, having
been passed without proper application of mind and without due
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/623/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026
undefined
appreciation of the evidence on record. It is contended that both
the courts have erred in assessing the income of the applicant on
mere presumptions and assumptions, despite documentary
evidence indicating his actual earnings, and have failed to
consider the existing maintenance already being paid. It is
further submitted that the learned Sessions Court, while partly
modifying the order, has nonetheless confirmed the erroneous
findings of the learned Magistrate, thereby resulting in
concurrent findings suffering from the same infirmities. The
learned advocate also contends that the reliefs granted are
excessive and unwarranted in the facts of the case, and that the
conduct of the respondent has not been properly appreciated.
Hence, the impugned orders, being unjust, illegal, and
unsustainable, deserve to be quashed and set aside.
4. The learned advocate for the respondent-wife submits that
the impugned orders passed by the courts below are just, legal,
and based on proper appreciation of the evidence on record, and
therefore do not call for any interference in the present revision
application. It is contended that the learned Magistrate has
rightly granted protection, residence, maintenance, and
compensation after considering the material on record and the
needs of the respondent, and the learned Sessions Court has
appropriately enhanced the amount towards residential
accommodation. It is further submitted that the applicant-
husband has sufficient earning capacity and has suppressed his
true income, and therefore the courts have rightly assessed his
income keeping in mind his status and ability. The learned
advocate also submits that the maintenance awarded is
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/623/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026
undefined
reasonable and in accordance with the provisions of law, and
that the respondent and the child are entitled to live with
dignity. Hence, the present revision application, being devoid of
merits, deserves to be dismissed.
5. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective
parties and considering the contents of the application as well as
the conclusions of the learned court, the applicant is the original
respondent-husband, against whom the wife initiated
proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act by filing Criminal
Misc. Application No. 214 of 2018. In the said proceedings, the
learned Magistrate was pleased to pass a protection order under
Section 18 of the Act, restraining the husband from committing
any act of violence. Further, under Section 19, the learned
Magistrate directed the husband to pay Rs. 2,500/- per month
towards residential accommodation and Rs. 2,500/- per month
towards maintenance, with a clear stipulation that the said
amounts shall be payable over and above the order passed under
Section 125 of the CrPC. Additionally, under Section 22,
compensation of Rs. 10,000/- was awarded. Being aggrieved and
dissatisfied with the said order, the wife preferred Criminal
Appeal No. 258 of 2019 before the learned Additional Sessions
Judge, Rajkot, wherein the amount towards residential
accommodation under Section 19 was enhanced from Rs.
2,500/- to Rs. 5,000/- per month. Being aggrieved and
dissatisfied with the aforesaid order, the present revision
application has been preferred.
6. At the outset, it appears that the husband has not
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/623/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026
undefined
challenged the original order passed by the learned Additional
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajkot under the Domestic Violence
Act in Criminal Misc. Application No. 214 of 2018 before the
appellate forum, and has only challenged the order passed in the
appeal preferred by the wife under Section 29, being Criminal
Appeal No. 258 of 2019, whereby the amount towards residential
accommodation has been enhanced from Rs. 2,500/- to Rs.
5,000/- per month. It further appears that in the original
proceedings, the respondent-wife had sought compensation of
Rs. 10,000/- under Section 22, which came to be granted by the
learned Magistrate after recording evidence. The learned
Magistrate, upon appreciation of the material on record,
assessed the income of the present applicant-husband at Rs.
35,000/- to Rs. 40,000/- per month. Despite specific questions
put to him in cross-examination regarding his income, the
applicant failed to produce any documentary evidence such as
salary details, bank passbook, or income tax returns, and was
also unwilling to disclose details regarding his father's income or
pension. In such circumstances, considering the suppression of
income by the applicant, the learned Magistrate rightly drew an
adverse inference against him in light of Section 106 of the
Evidence Act and the principle of able-bodied earning capacity as
recognized under Section 125 of the CrPC.
7. Accordingly, taking into consideration the aforesaid
aspects and applying the principles laid down in Rajneesh vs.
Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324, the court awarded maintenance of Rs.
7,500/- per month with appropriate set-off, and further granted
an additional amount of Rs. 2,500/- towards residential
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/623/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026
undefined
accommodation. No illegality is found in the said approach, as
proper set-off has been granted and the findings are concurrent
in nature. So far as the enhancement of the amount towards
residential accommodation is concerned, the learned Sessions
Court has rightly enhanced the same from Rs. 2,500/- to Rs.
5,000/- per month, considering that the applicant is residing in
Rajkot and taking into account the prevailing rate of inflation,
with cogent reasons duly assigned.
8. In view of the above, this Court is of the considered opinion
that the mere earning capacity of the wife cannot be the sole
ground to deny maintenance. The objection raised by the
husband against the claim of the wife for maintenance is
therefore unsustainable. While considering an application under
this provision at the instance of a destitute wife, helpless
children or parents, the Court is dealing with the marginalized
sections of society. The object of granting maintenance is to
achieve social justice in furtherance of the constitutional vision
embodied in the Preamble to the Constitution of India. In this
regard, this Court deems it appropriate to refer to the judgment
of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rajneesh vs. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC
324, wherein, in paragraph 49, it has been held as follows.
"49. Section 22 provides that the Magistrate may pass an
order directing the respondent to pay compensation and
damages for the injuries, including mental torture and
emotional distress, caused by the acts of domestic violence
perpetrated by the respondent. Section 23 provides that the
Magistrate may grant an ex parte order, including an order
under Section 20 for monetary relief. The Magistrate must be
satisfied that the application filed by the aggrieved woman
discloses that the respondent is committing, or has
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/623/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026
undefined
committed an act of domestic violence, or that there is a
likelihood that the respondent may commit an act of
domestic violence. In such a case, the Magistrate is
empowered to pass an ex parte order on the basis of the
affidavit of the aggrieved woman."
9. In the light of above-mentioned precedents, it appears that
the impugned order deciding the application cannot in any way
affect the finality of the dispute between the parties. The
applicant has failed to point out any patent error in the
impugned order or any miscarriage of justice. The courts below
has assigned proper reasons while passing the impugned order
and therefore no case is made out for interference with the
concurrent findings. The application fails to satisfy the test for
exercising revisional jurisdiction in light of the scope of revision
laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Amit Kapoor vs.
Ramesh Chander, 2012 (9) SCC 460.
10. Accordingly, the present revision application stands
dismissed. Interim relief, if any, stands vacated.
(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J)
ALI
