Gujarat High Court
Aarti W/O Kapilkumar Dattattrey D/O … vs State Of Gujarat on 21 April, 2026
Author: Gita Gopi
Bench: Gita Gopi
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/977/2025 ORDER DATED: 21/04/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (FOR MAINTENANCE) NO. 977 of
2025
==========================================================
AARTI W/O KAPILKUMAR DATTATTREY D/O SHIVDAYAL SHARMA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS AVANI V PATEL(8016) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR YAGNESHKUMAR S JOSHI(8074) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR PS PATEL(643) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR NIRAJ SHARMA APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
Date : 21/04/2026
ORDER
1. The applicant has challenged the order rejecting the
maintenance application under Section 125 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘Cr.PC‘) dated 05.04.2025
passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Vadodara
in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.882 of 2021.
2. Learned Advocate Mr. Yogesh Joshi for the applicant
submitted that the family Court on the ground of the
educational qualification and vocational training of the
applicant and a short-term employment of nine days, that too
after the filing of the application for maintenance and her
holding of the SBI credit card on the ground of the temporary
employment in SBI Credit Card Department had found the
applicant capable to maintain herself, thus has rejected the
application.
Page 1 of 13
Uploaded by PARMAR KRISH JAYESH(HC02348) on Mon Apr 27 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 27 21:54:05 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/977/2025 ORDER DATED: 21/04/2026
undefined
2.1 Advocate Mr. Joshi, referring to the judgment of
Chaturbhuj vs. Sita Bai, (2008) 2 SCC 316, submitted that the
learned Family Court Judge has overlooked the settled
principles that the wife’s inability to maintain herself must be
assessed on the relevant circumstances, which would be the
circumstances after the marriage and during the matrimonial
life and not the past employment or the academic background.
2.2 Advocate Mr. Joshi has also referred to the judgments of
Shailja vs. Khobbanna, 2017 (0) AIJEL-SC 59972, Nirmala
Bhanji vs. Jayantilal Vithaldas, 1975 (0) AIJEL-HC 208734,
Chaturbhuj vs. Sita Bai, 2007 (0) AIJEL-SC 40145, Kumpal
Jagdishbhai Madrasi vs. State of Gujarat, 2024 (0) AIJEL-HC
248140, Meghrajsingh S/o Maharajsinh Chudasma vs.
Meghaviniba W/o Meghrajsinh Chudasama D/o Prahladsinhji
Pradyumansinhji Jadeja and Anr., 2024 (0) AIJEL-HC 249045,
Ravinder Singh Bisht vs. State of U.P. and anr. In Cr.Ra
No.1637 of 2025, Sunita Kachwaha vs. Anil Kachwaha, 2014
(0) AIJEL-HC 55844, submitting that the status of the
husband, his living standard and the means of the husband
has to be considered while assessing the requirement of the
maintenance money. Even if the wife is capable of earning, the
husband cannot deny the maintenance as per his standard.
2.3 Advocate Mr. Joshi has also relied on the judgment of
Sunita Kachwaha (supra) to submit that the Hon’ble Supreme
Court has noted the facts of the post graduation qualification
of the wife and has held that merely because of such
Page 2 of 13
Uploaded by PARMAR KRISH JAYESH(HC02348) on Mon Apr 27 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 27 21:54:05 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/977/2025 ORDER DATED: 21/04/2026
undefined
qualification, it would not be sufficient to hold that she is not in
a position to maintain herself and merely because the wife is
earning something, it would not be a ground to deny
maintenance in absence of the proof of employment on record.
2.4 Advocate Mr. Joshi submitted that the applicant had tried
to seek employment after filing the maintenance application
but had failed. She could serve only for nine days which is an
admitted proof on record and though inspite of her educational
qualification and vocational training, she has not been in a
position to secure any job.
3. Countering the arguments, learned Advocate Mr. Amit
Patel for learned Advocate Mr. PS Patel relying on the
judgments of Cri.Rev.P.No.273/2023 and Cr.ma
No.6767/2023, Gurpreet Dhariwal vs. Amit Jain
2022/DHC/001082, Sukhmani Kaur and Anr. vs. Ravinder
Palsingh Crr.F-386-2024 (O&M), Damanpreet Kaur vs.
Indermeet Juneja and Anr. Cr.L. Rev.P. 344/2011, Sh. Neeraj
Aggarwal vs. Mrs. Veeka Aggarwal, M.No.28/2007 submitted
that in the referred judgments, the courts have taken into
consideration the educational qualification of the petitioner,
her capability of earning, her previous employment and the
fact that the wife being well-qualified, she cannot be given any
benefit of her own volition of remaining idle. Advocate Mr.
Patel submitted that when she is having sufficient qualification
for earning her own livelihood, then the burden should not be
laid down on the husband to maintain her.
Page 3 of 13
Uploaded by PARMAR KRISH JAYESH(HC02348) on Mon Apr 27 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 27 21:54:05 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/977/2025 ORDER DATED: 21/04/2026
undefined
4. The observation of the learned Judge was on the basis
that petitioner had after completing her education in standard
12th, in the year 2014-15 she had succeeded in National Credit
Corpus, NCC-B certificate, thereafter, had taken the admission
in MS University, Baroda for Bachelors of Commerce and after
completion of the Bachelorate, in the year 2017 had taken the
“Post Graduate Diploma in Applied Economics”. From the
course of “Jan Sikshan Sansthan”, she obtained “Certificate In
Office Automation” and “Financial Accounting”. Further,
through program for skill building organized by ICICI Academy
for Skills, she acquired knowledge of “Selling Skills” and
further, she acquired nine months job experience in SBI Bank
Credit Department and also in “Innovsource Services Pvt. Ltd.”
she worked as “Branch Relationship Manager”, further her
admission in the cross-examination of having attended nine
days job from 05.08.2023 to 16.08.2023, has been the cause
of rejection of the maintenance application.
5. In the case of Chaturbhuj (supra) referred by learned
Advocate Mr. Joshi, it has been observed in para nos. 6, 7, and
8 as under:
“6. The object of the maintenance proceedings
is not to punish a person for his past neglect,
but to prevent vagrancy by compelling those
who can provide support to those who are
unable to support themselves and who have a
moral claim to support. The phrase “unable to
maintain herself” in the instant case would
mean that means available to the deserted
wife while she was living with her husband andPage 4 of 13
Uploaded by PARMAR KRISH JAYESH(HC02348) on Mon Apr 27 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 27 21:54:05 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.RA/977/2025 ORDER DATED: 21/04/2026
undefined
would not take within itself the efforts made
by the wife after desertion to survive
somehow. Section 125 CrPC is a measure of
social justice and is specially enacted to
protect women and children and as noted by
this Court in Captain Ramesh Chander Kaushal
v. Veena Kaushal [(1978) 4 SCC 70 : 1978
SCC (Cri) 508 : AIR 1978 SC 1807] falls within
constitutional sweep of Article 15(3) reinforced
by Article 39 of the Constitution of India. It is
meant to achieve a social purpose. The object
is to prevent vagrancy and destitution. It
provides a speedy remedy for the supply of
food, clothing and shelter to the deserted wife.
It gives effect to fundamental rights and
natural duties of a man to maintain his wife,
children and parents when they are unable to
maintain themselves. The aforesaid position
was highlighted in Savitaben Somabhai
Bhatiya v. State of Gujarat [(2005) 3 SCC 636
: 2005 SCC (Cri) 787 : (2005) 2 Supreme
503] .
7. Under the law the burden is placed in the
first place upon the wife to show that the
means of her husband are sufficient. In the
instant case there is no dispute that the
appellant has the requisite means. But there is
an inseparable condition which has also to be
satisfied that the wife was unable to maintain
herself. These two conditions are in addition to
the requirement that the husband must have
neglected or refused to maintain his wife. It
has to be established that the wife was unable
to maintain herself. The appellant has placed
material to show that the respondent wife was
earning some income. That is not sufficient to
rule out application of Section 125 CrPC. It has
to be established that with the amount shePage 5 of 13
Uploaded by PARMAR KRISH JAYESH(HC02348) on Mon Apr 27 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 27 21:54:05 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.RA/977/2025 ORDER DATED: 21/04/2026
undefined
earned the respondent wife was able to
maintain herself.
8. In an illustrative case 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
CrPC. 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. In
Bhagwan Dutt v. Kamla Devi [(1975) 2 SCC
386 : 1975 SCC (Cri) 563 : AIR 1975 SC 83] it
was observed that the wife should be in a
position to maintain a 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.”
5.1 In the case of Shailja (supra) referred by learned
Advocate Mr. Joshi, it has been referred in para 8 as under:
“8. That apart, we find that the High Court
has proceeded on the basis that Appellant
1 was capable of earning and that is one of
the reasons for reducing the maintenance
granted to her by the Family Court.
Whether Appellant 1 is capable of earning
or whether she is actually earning are two
different requirements. Merely becausePage 6 of 13
Uploaded by PARMAR KRISH JAYESH(HC02348) on Mon Apr 27 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 27 21:54:05 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.RA/977/2025 ORDER DATED: 21/04/2026
undefined
Appellant 1 is capable of earning is not, in
our opinion, sufficient reason to reduce the
maintenance awarded by the Family
Court.”
6. Learned Advocate Mr. Patel submitted that the learned
Family Court Judge has analyzed the evidence on record and
had considered the qualification of the applicant and her
previous employment and even the fact of her holding the
credit card of the bank and the capability to earning and
maintaining herself, has rightly rejected the application
submitting that if the wife is well qualified and have the ability
to earn handsomely, then the prayer of maintenance ought not
to have been granted, which has been rightly done by the
family Court.
7. The fact of the matter as has come on record shows that
the wife prior to the marriage was having a job as “Branch
Relationship Manager” and had also a job experience in SBI
Credit Department and therefore was holding the credit card
and after the bachelor degree, she had applied in various
certification post and had also obtained NCC certificate. The
evidence thus had followed upon the Family Court for
concluding that the applicant wife was in a position to maintain
herself. The temporary employment as has been recorded was
only after the filing of the maintenance application, which also
the applicant could not retained. There is nothing on record to
suggest that after marriage, the applicant-wife was permitted
to go for an employment.
Page 7 of 13
Uploaded by PARMAR KRISH JAYESH(HC02348) on Mon Apr 27 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 27 21:54:05 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/977/2025 ORDER DATED: 21/04/2026
undefined
8. Having observed the observations in the judgments of
Chaturbhuj (supra) and Shailja (supra), merely producing on
record that the applicant-wife was having sufficient educational
qualification and was earning some income prior to the
marriage, that would not be sufficient to rule out the
application of Section 125 of Cr.PC. It has to be established
that the wife was earning and that the earning of the wife was
sufficient for her to maintain herself.
9. Here, having considered the evidence on record, the
applicant-wife had tried to seek some employment after filing
the maintenance petition, but could not succeed in her job.
Nothing has been proved on record of the applicant’s-wife
earning or of any employment and when the respondent-
husband though having sufficient means has failed to maintain
the wife, then that could be considered as neglect and refusal
from his side, making the application under Section 125 of the
Cr.PC maintainable.
10. In the case of Rajnesh v. Neha and Another reported in
(2021) 2 SCC 324, it has been noted in Paragraphs 90 to 92
where the observations has been made with regard to the
earning of the wife as well as maintenance of the minor child.
The same are reproduced as under :-
“(c) Where wife is earning some income
90. The courts have held that if the wife is
earning, it cannot operate as a bar fromPage 8 of 13
Uploaded by PARMAR KRISH JAYESH(HC02348) on Mon Apr 27 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 27 21:54:05 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.RA/977/2025 ORDER DATED: 21/04/2026
undefined
being awarded maintenance by the
husband. The Courts have provided
guidance on this issue in the following
judgments.
90.1. In Shailja and Anr. v. Khobbanna
(2018) 12 SCC 199, this Court held that
merely because the wife is capable of
earning, it would not be a sufficient ground
to reduce the maintenance awarded by the
Family Court. The Court has to determine
whether the income of the wife is sufficient
to enable her to maintain herself, in
accordance with the lifestyle of her
husband in the matrimonial home.
Sustenance does not mean, and cannot be
allowed to mean mere survival.
90.2. In Sunita Kachwaha and Ors. v. Anil
Kachwaha (2014) 16 SCC 715 the wife had
a postgraduate degree, and was employed
as a teacher in Jabalpur. The husband
raised a contention that since the wife had
sufficient income, she would not require
financial assistance from the husband. The
Supreme Court repelled this contention,
and held that merely because the wife was
earning some income, it could not be a
ground to reject her claim for maintenance.
90.3. The Bombay High Court in Sanjay
Damodar Kale v. Kalyani Sanjay Kale 2020
SCC OnLine Bom 694 while relying upon
the judgment in Sunita Kachwaha (supra),
held that neither the mere potential to
earn, nor the actual earning of the wife,
howsoever meagre, is sufficient to deny the
Page 9 of 13
Uploaded by PARMAR KRISH JAYESH(HC02348) on Mon Apr 27 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 27 21:54:05 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/977/2025 ORDER DATED: 21/04/2026
undefined
claim of maintenance.
90.4. An able-bodied husband must be
presumed to be capable of earning
sufficient money to maintain his wife and
children, and cannot contend that he is not
in a position to earn sufficiently to maintain
his family, as held by the Delhi High Court
in Chander Prakash Bodhraj v. Shila Rani
Chander Prakash AIR 1968 Delhi 174. The
onus is on the husband to establish with
necessary material that there are sufficient
grounds to show that he is unable to
maintain the family, and discharge his legal
obligations for reasons beyond his control.
If the husband does not disclose the exact
amount of his income, an adverse inference
may be drawn by the Court.
90.5. This Court in Shamima Farooqui v.
Shahid Khan (2015) 5 SCC 705 cited the
judgment in Chander Prakash (supra) with
approval, and held that the obligation of
the husband to provide maintenance stands
on a higher pedestal than the wife.
(d) Maintenance of minor children
91. The living expenses of the child would
include expenses for food, clothing,
residence, medical expenses, education of
children. Extra coaching classes or any
other vocational training courses to
complement the basic education must be
factored in, while awarding child support.
Albeit, it should be a reasonable amount to
be awarded for extra-curricular/coaching
classes, and not an overly extravagant
Page 10 of 13
Uploaded by PARMAR KRISH JAYESH(HC02348) on Mon Apr 27 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 27 21:54:05 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/977/2025 ORDER DATED: 21/04/2026
undefined
amount which may be claimed.
92. Education expenses of the children
must be normally borne by the father. If
the wife is working and earning sufficiently,
the expenses may be shared
proportionately between the parties.”
11. In the recent decision of the Apex Court dated
16.04.2026 in the case of Deepa Joshi v. Gaurav Joshi in
Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No.15662 of 2025, in Paragraphs
11, 12, 13, 14, and 16 it has been held as under :-
“11. The object of maintenance proceedings
is well settled. In Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai
reported in (2008) 2 SCC 316, this Court
held that the provision is intended to
prevent destitution and that a wife is not
required to establish absolute inability to
survive before claiming maintenance. In
Shamima Farooqui v. Shahid Khan reported
in (2015) 5 SCC 705, it was emphasized
that maintenance must not be illusory and
should enable the wife to live with dignity.
Further, in Rajnesh v. Neha and Another
reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324, this Court
reiterated that maintenance must be fair,
reasonable and commensurate with the
status of the parties and the financial
capacity of the husband.
12. Tested on the aforesaid principles, it
emerges that the determination of
maintenance must be guided by a balanced
assessment of the earning capacity of thePage 11 of 13
Uploaded by PARMAR KRISH JAYESH(HC02348) on Mon Apr 27 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 27 21:54:05 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.RA/977/2025 ORDER DATED: 21/04/2026
undefined
husband and the reasonable needs of the
wife. In the present case, it is not in
dispute that the respondent is in salaried
employment and has a regular source of
income. The Family Court, while
determining maintenance, appears to have
accorded considerable weight to deductions
reflected in the salary, and the High Court
has, to an extent, corrected the inadequacy
by enhancing the amount.
13. However, deductions arising out of
financial commitments such as loan
repayments, particularly where they
contribute towards creation of assets,
cannot be placed on the same footing as
necessary expenditure so as to
substantially reduce the liability of
maintenance. The liability to maintain a
spouse is a primary obligation and cannot
be subordinated to such financial
arrangements.
14. It is also not in dispute that the
appellant has no independent source of
income and has been residing separately
shortly after the marriage. The
maintenance awarded must therefore
enable her to sustain herself with a
reasonable degree of dignity, consistent
with the status of the parties. At the same
time, it is necessary to ensure that the
determination remains fair and reasonable
and does not impose an excessive burden
upon the respondent. The exercise is one of
achieving a just balance between
competing considerations.
Page 12 of 13
Uploaded by PARMAR KRISH JAYESH(HC02348) on Mon Apr 27 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 27 21:54:05 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/977/2025 ORDER DATED: 21/04/2026
undefined
16. The obligation of the husband to
maintain his spouse is a primary and
continuing duty, which must be discharged
in a manner that enables the wife to live
with dignity and in a standard
commensurate with that enjoyed during the
subsistence of the marriage. Viewed thus,
deductions on account of asset-generating
repayments cannot be permitted to
substantially dilute the respondent’s real
earning capacity for the purpose of
determining maintenance. We are of the
opinion that a sum of ₹25,000/- per month
would be just, fair and reasonable in the
facts of the present case.”
12. The learned Family Court Judge has observed that the
respondent-husband is having the job in Voltamp company
earning monthly income of Rs.33,458/- and the husband has
responsibility of both the parents, the unit will be considered
four in number and individual unit would be entitled for an
amount of Rs.8,364.50/-, hence in rounding up the figure, the
liability of the husband to maintain the applicant-wife would be
of Rs.8,365/- per month.
13. In the result, the application is allowed. The order of the
learned Family Court Judge, Vadodara dated 05.04.2025,
rejecting the maintenance application is set aside. It is ordered
that the respondent-husband shall pay the maintenance
amount of Rs.8,365/- per month from the date of the Criminal
Miscellaneous Application No.882 of 2021.
(GITA GOPI,J)
PARMAR KRISH/39
Page 13 of 13
Uploaded by PARMAR KRISH JAYESH(HC02348) on Mon Apr 27 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 27 21:54:05 IST 2026