MANJUBEN D/O KHIMABHAI CHAVDA W/O JETHABHAI AMRABHAI MARU vs STATE OF GUJARAT

Court
Gujarat High Court

R/SCR.A/1066/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/10/2026
(GJHC240043292025)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (FOR MAINTENANCE) NO. 1066 of
2025

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI

==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
No
==========================================================
MANJUBEN D/O KHIMABHAI CHAVDA W/O JETHABHAI AMRABHAI MARU
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR JAY B AMBANI(13896) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR DHAIRYAWAN D BHATT(11817) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR HARDIK MEHTA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI

Date : 28/10/2026

JUDGMENT
1. In this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India, the petitioner challenges judgment and order dated
03.12.2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rajkot
in Criminal Revision Application No.228 of 2023, by which
learned Sessions Judge has confirmed the judgment order
passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jasdan in
Criminal Misc. Application No.40 of 2022, whereby, in
application under section 125 of the Cr.P.C., the petitioner was
awarded maintenance of Rs 12,500/- with cost of Rs 2,500/-
from the date of the petition.
Page 1 of 4
Uploaded by SATISH C. VEMULLA(HC00206) on Wed Oct 28 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 29 01:06:18 IST 2026

R/SCR.A/1066/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/10/2026
(GJHC240043292025)
2. Heard learned advocate Mr. Jay Ambani appearing for the
petitioner, and learned advocate Mr.Dhairyawan Bhatt appearing
for the respondent No.2. I have also heard learned APP for the
respondent – State.
3. Referring to Annexure C, at page no.31, learned advocate
Mr. Jay Ambani submitted the the total salary of husband in
August, 2022 was Rs.77,414/- and it was placed before the
learned Trial Court at Exh.15, however, the learned Court
without considering the facts that deductions are personal
assets of husband took up net amount payable to calculate
1/3rd of it towards the maintenance. He referred to judgment in
case of Harpreet Sawhney v/s. Puneet Sharma [2026 INSC
822] and submitted that issue raised in this petition is covered
by said judgment.
3.1. In view of above submissions, it is submitted to allow this
petition and to pass necessary order.
4. Per contra, learned advocate Mr.Dhairyawan Bhatt
appearing for the husband respondent No.2 relied upon the
judgment in case of Pratibha Dinesh Kumar Vania v/s. State
of Gujarat [2008 1 GCD 727] and submitted that Professional
tax and income tax are to be deducted from the total pay and
thereafter the Court to consider the pay slip as well as income of
the husband to determine the maintenance amount. He
supported impugned judgment and submitted to dismiss this
petition.
5. Having heard learned advocate for both the sides and
Page 2 of 4
Uploaded by SATISH C. VEMULLA(HC00206) on Wed Oct 28 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 29 01:06:18 IST 2026

R/SCR.A/1066/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/10/2026
(GJHC240043292025)
considering the impugned judgment at the outset, I may refer to
judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Harpreet
Sawhney (supra), in para 20, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held
as under :-
“20. We have considered the submissions of the Appellant
that the deductions are voluntary in nature. We find that
deductions of Provident Fund and ESPPs are ultimately
benefits that would be passed on to the Respondent-
husband. Unlike Income Tax payment or professional taxes
which are mandatory taxes, PFs and ESPPs are not
permanent charges but rather will accrue into the account of
the Respondent-husband which can be withdrawn by the
depositor in the future.”
6. What appears that learned Revisionist Court, committed
serious error in confirming the order which is suffering from
palpable illegality. It was expected from the learned Revisionist
Court to distinguish between mandatory statutory deduction and
voluntary financial saving to consider total pay and to decide the
issue of maintenance grantable to the petitioner. One must not
lose sight that the voluntary financial savings are assets of the
husband. At this stage, learned advocate Mr. Jay Ambani
submits that subsequent to the judgment in Criminal Revision
Application, salary of the husband is enhanced. As against this
submission, learned advocate Mr. Mr.Dhairyawan Bhatt submits
that the husband as of now is retired and getting pension.
7. Considering the overall facts and circumstances, I find that
it is a fit case to remand the Revision Application to learned
Sessions Court for fresh consideration and in accordance with
law, permitting both the party to lead necessary admissible
Page 3 of 4
Uploaded by SATISH C. VEMULLA(HC00206) on Wed Oct 28 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 29 01:06:18 IST 2026

R/SCR.A/1066/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/10/2026
(GJHC240043292025)
evidence if required and giving opportunity of hearing to both the
parties as well.
8. For the reasons stated herein above, and in view of above
observations, this petition is allowed. Impugned judgment and
order dated 03.12.2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions
Judge, Rajkot in Criminal Revision Application No.228 of 2023
is quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded and restored
to the Court of learned Principal District Judge, Rajkot for fresh
consideration. Both the parties are directed to remain present
before the learned Principal District Judge, Rajkot on
01.12.2026. It is clarified that the matter shall be decided by
learned Principal District Judge, Rajkot. All the contentions of
both parties are kept.
(J. C. DOSHI,J)
SATISH
Page 4 of 4
Uploaded by SATISH C. VEMULLA(HC00206) on Wed Oct 28 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 29 01:06:18 IST 2026