Gujarat High Court
Ujjaval Devendrabhai Raval vs State Of Gujarat on 2 April, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/866/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (FOR MAINTENANCE) NO. 866 of 2016
With
CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (DIRECTION) NO. 1 of 2017
In R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 866 of 2016
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
UJJAVAL DEVENDRABHAI RAVAL
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR K S CHANDRANI(6674) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR PR ABICHANDANI(102) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR ROHAN RAVAL, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 02/04/2026
JUDGMENT
1. By way of the present application, the applicant has
requested this Court to quash and set aside the judgment and
order dated 23.08.2016 passed by the learned Judge, Family
Court, Rajkot in Criminal Misc. Application No.412 of 2014.
2. It is the case of the applicant that the applicant and
respondent No.2 were married on 01.12.2011 as per Hindu rites
and their marriage was duly registered. After marriage,
respondent No.2 intermittently resided at her matrimonial home
and parental home. Initially, she resided with the applicant in a
joint family, however, on her insistence for a separate residence,
the applicant started residing with her in a rented premises from
March 2012. Out of the wedlock, a son, namely Samarth, was
born on 18.12.2012. Thereafter, disputes arose between the
parties and respondent No.2 started residing at her parental
Page 1 of 7
Uploaded by ALI ISTAYAK(HC01093) on Tue Apr 07 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 08 00:43:13 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/866/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026
undefined
home. On 03.04.2014, she lodged an FIR before Mahila Police
Station, Rajkot being I-C.R. No.25/2014 for the offences
punishable under Sections 406, 498A, 354, 323, 504, 506(2)
read with Section 114 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act against the applicant and his family members
alleging harassment and dowry demand. Subsequently,
respondent No.2 filed Criminal Misc. Application No.412 of 2014
under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance for herself
and the minor son. By order dated 23.08.2016, the learned
Family Court partly allowed the application and directed the
applicant to pay maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month to
respondent No.2 and Rs.5,000/- per month to the minor son,
totaling Rs.15,000/- per month.
3. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties.
4. Learned advocate for the applicant submitted that the
impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is unjust,
illegal, perverse and contrary to the provisions of Section 125 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure. It was submitted that the
learned Judge failed to appreciate the evidence on record in its
true perspective and wrongly relied solely upon the
uncorroborated version of respondent No.2 while ignoring the
oral and documentary evidence produced by the applicant. It
was further submitted that respondent No.2 had voluntarily left
the matrimonial home without any justifiable cause and was
unwilling to reside with the applicant despite his readiness to
maintain and take her back. It is submitted that the allegations
of harassment, dowry demand, physical and mental cruelty are
Page 2 of 7
Uploaded by ALI ISTAYAK(HC01093) on Tue Apr 07 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 08 00:43:13 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/866/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026
undefined
vague, contradictory, baseless and made only with a view to
harass the applicant and his family members. It is submitted
that respondent No.2 insisted upon a separate residence despite
being aware before marriage that the applicant was required to
reside with and look after his aged parents. Learned advocate
further submitted that respondent No.2 had initiated several
proceedings including criminal prosecution, proceedings under
the Domestic Violence Act and maintenance proceedings only
with an intention to pressurize the applicant and his family
members. It is also argued that the learned Family Court
wrongly assessed the income of the applicant at Rs.25,000/- per
month without any cogent evidence on record, despite the
material produced by the applicant showing that his annual
income was much lower. The respondent No.2 is well educated,
holds an MBA degree, is capable of earning and is therefore not
entitled to maintenance. In any case, the total maintenance of
Rs.15,000/- per month awarded in favour of respondent Nos.2
and 3 was stated to be excessive, particularly when respondent
No.2 had already been awarded maintenance in separate
proceedings under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. It was
therefore submitted that the impugned order being excessive,
arbitrary and passed without proper appreciation of evidence
deserves to be quashed and set aside.
5. Learned advocates appearing for the respondents opposed
the application and supported the impugned order passed by the
learned Family Court by submitting that the same has been
passed after proper appreciation of the oral as well as
documentary evidence on record and does not suffer from any
Page 3 of 7
Uploaded by ALI ISTAYAK(HC01093) on Tue Apr 07 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 08 00:43:13 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/866/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026
undefined
illegality or perversity. It was submitted that respondent No.2
was subjected to mental and physical cruelty and was compelled
to leave the matrimonial home due to continuous harassment
and dowry demands raised by the applicant and his family
members. It was further submitted that respondent No.2 had no
option but to reside separately and the allegation that she
voluntarily deserted the applicant is false and contrary to the
record. Learned advocate submitted that merely because the
applicant expressed willingness to keep respondent No.2 with
him would not disentitle her from maintenance when she was
compelled to leave the matrimonial home on account of cruelty
and harassment. It was further argued that respondent No.2 had
consistently narrated the incidents of ill-treatment in her
application as well as evidence and the same was duly believed
by the learned Family Court. Learned advocate further
submitted that the applicant had failed to disclose his true
income and the learned Family Court rightly assessed his
earning capacity considering his standard of living, family
background and evidence on record. It was also submitted that
respondent No.2 is residing separately along with the minor son
and is required to incur expenses towards food, residence,
education and day-to-day necessities, and therefore the amount
awarded by the learned Family Court cannot be said to be
excessive. It was submitted that even if respondent No.2 is
educated, mere educational qualification does not disentitle her
from claiming maintenance unless it is shown that she is
actually earning sufficient income to maintain herself and the
minor child. Learned advocate therefore submitted that the
impugned order is just, proper and in accordance with law and
Page 4 of 7
Uploaded by ALI ISTAYAK(HC01093) on Tue Apr 07 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 08 00:43:13 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/866/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026
undefined
no interference is called for by this Hon’ble Court.
6. 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, it is evident that the wife is
unable to maintain herself and has been neglected by her
husband. Furthermore, it is important to note that the mere fact
that the wife is earning or she is able to maintain herself is not a
valid ground to reject her claim for maintenance. In this regard,
this Court finds it appropriate to refer to the judgment delivered
by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sunita Kachwaha and Ors. vs.
Anil Kachwaha, reported in (2014) 16 SCC 715. In that case,
the wife, who was living separately, sought maintenance from
her husband. The husband objected on the ground that the wife
had sufficient means to maintain herself, but this argument was
rejected by the Hon’ble Apex Court. It was held that merely
because the wife is earning and may be highly qualified cannot
be a reason to deny her claim for maintenance. The relevant
observation made in paragraph 9 of the judgment is reproduced
as follows:
“Inability to maintain herself is the pre-condition for grant of
maintenance to the wife. The wife must positively aver and
prove that she is unable to maintain herself, in addition to the
fact that her husband has sufficient means to maintain her
and that he has neglected to maintain her. In her evidence,
the appellant-wife has stated that only with the help of her
retired parents and brothers, she is able to maintain herself
and her daughters, while her husband’s economic condition is
quite good and the wife was entitled to maintenance.”
7. In view of the above, this Court is of the considered opinion
Page 5 of 7
Uploaded by ALI ISTAYAK(HC01093) on Tue Apr 07 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 08 00:43:13 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/866/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026
undefined
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
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.”
8. From the various judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
as well as learned High 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. It is the duty of the husband to maintain his wife
and to provide financial support to her and their children and he
Page 6 of 7
Uploaded by ALI ISTAYAK(HC01093) on Tue Apr 07 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 08 00:43:13 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/866/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/04/2026
undefined
cannot shirk his responsibility as husband as well as father to
maintain his legally wedded wife and children, which is his
social and lawful duty towards them and the wife and children
would be entitled to the same standard of living, which they were
enjoying while living with them. In this regard reference is
required to be made in the case of Bhuwan Mohan Singh vs
Meena, reported in 2015 (6) SCC 353.
9. In the light of above-mentioned precedents, it appears that
the impugned order deciding the application can not 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 family Court
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.
11. Since the main matter is disposed of, the present Criminal
Misc. Application for direction does not survive. Hence, the same
is disposed of accordingly.
(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J)
ALI
Page 7 of 7
Uploaded by ALI ISTAYAK(HC01093) on Tue Apr 07 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 08 00:43:13 IST 2026
