JAYESHBHAI ALIAS JAYSHANKAR BHUPATBHAI SODHA vs STATE OF GUJARAT

Court: Gujarat High Court
Case type: CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION
Decided on: 09-04-2026

<div> R/CR.RA/1060/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/04/2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (FOR MAINTENANCE) NO. 1060 of 2017 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR ========================================================== </div><table><thead><tr><th>Approved for Reporting</th><th>Yes</th><th>No</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table><div> JAYESHBHAI ALIAS JAYSHANKAR BHUPATBHAI SODHA Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS. ========================================================== Appearance: DARSHIT R BRAHMBHATT(8011) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 DIPTESH R BRAHMBHATT(8407) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 HCLS COMMITTEE(4998) for the Respondent(s) No. 3,4,5,6 MR ASHUTOSH S DAVE(8865) for the Respondent(s) No. 2 MS. GR SONERAO(6922) for the Respondent(s) No. 3,4,5,6 MS. YESHA P DHAGAT(15747) for the Respondent(s) No. 2 MS SHRUTI PATHAK, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ========================================================== </div><table><thead><tr><th>CORAM:</th><th>HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR</th></tr></thead><tbody></tbody></table><div> Date : 09/04/2026 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. By way of the present application, the applicant has requested this Court to quash and set aside the judgment and order dated 16.08.2017 passed by the learned Family Court, Nadiad in Criminal Misc. Application No.504 of 2017 (Old No. 689 of 2014. 2. It is the case of the applicant that the the marriage between the applicant and respondent No.2 was solemnized in the year 1999 according to Hindu rites and rituals. Out of the wedlock, they have four children, namely one son, Aaman, aged 14 years, and three daughters, Bhumika, aged 12 years, Janki, aged 9 years, and Megha, aged 7 years. It is the case of the respondent-wife that she was deserted by the husband along with the minor children in the year 2008, and thereafter she filed Page 1 of 7 Uploaded by ALI ISTAYAK(HC01093) on Fri Apr 10 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 10 19:00:06 IST 2026 R/CR.RA/1060/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/04/2026 an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance. The learned Magistrate, after appreciating the evidence on record, awarded maintenance of Rs.600/- to the wife and Rs.500/- each to the minor children, aggregating to Rs.2,600/- per month. It is submitted that the husband is working as a driver with GSRTC and has been regularly paying maintenance as per the order of the Court. Thereafter, the wife filed an application under Section 127 of the Cr.P.C. for enhancement of maintenance, and the learned Family Court at Nadiad, after appreciating the evidence and material on record, enhanced the maintenance amount to Rs.6,000/- per month. Therefore, the present application. 3. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties. 4. The learned advocate for the applicant submitted that the income of the applicant is only Rs.8,000/- per month and that he is working as a daily wager as well as an ST driver. It was submitted that initially, maintenance of Rs.2,600/- was granted in proceedings under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., considering the income of the applicant to be Rs.8,000/- per month. Thereafter, the wife filed an application under Section 127 of the Cr.P.C. seeking enhancement of maintenance, and without any evidence, the maintenance amount came to be increased to Rs.6,000/- in the year 2017. However, no documentary evidence was produced by the wife to show that the income of the applicant had increased. Hence, it was requested that the present application be allowed. Page 2 of 7 Uploaded by ALI ISTAYAK(HC01093) on Fri Apr 10 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 10 19:00:06 IST 2026 R/CR.RA/1060/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/04/2026 5. The learned advocate for the respondent-wife opposed the present application on the ground that there are five persons to be maintained. Initially, proceedings were initiated in the year 2008 and maintenance of only Rs.2,600/- was awarded on 27.02.2009. At the relevant point of time, the applicant was working in a private firm as a computer operator. Subsequently, he was appointed in GSRTC and also entered into a second marriage. This fact is reflected from the details provided by GSRTC under the RTI Act, wherein the name of another lady is mentioned as nominee in the provident fund records. Not only that, his salary is stated to be Rs.72,000/- per month. Hence, it was submitted that the learned Family Court has not committed any error. The marriage subsisted for 18 years and out of the wedlock four children were born. At the relevant time, only Rs.2,600/- was awarded towards maintenance. However, after a long period, the educational and other expenses for maintaining the children have increased. In the enhancement application also, evidence showing salary income of Rs.10,000/- was produced on record. Over and above this, the husband is also stated to have agricultural income, ownership of 10 acres of land, a tractor, a tubewell, and other agricultural income. Hence, it was requested that the present application be dismissed. 6. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and after perusing the record, it appears that the learned Family Judge has duly considered the material placed on record. At the time of passing the impugned order, pay slips produced below Exhibits 19 and 23 reflected that the applicant was earning a salary of Rs.12,025/- per month. Thereafter, from the Page 3 of 7 Uploaded by ALI ISTAYAK(HC01093) on Fri Apr 10 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 10 19:00:06 IST 2026 R/CR.RA/1060/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/04/2026 documents produced on record and furnished by GSRTC, it appears that the applicant is earning around Rs.72,000/- per month. Not only that, but the applicant is also stated to be earning agricultural income. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the learned Family Court has not committed any error in awarding maintenance of Rs.6,000/- per month. More particularly, considering that the amount is required to maintain the wife and four children, it is difficult in the present time to maintain five persons with such an amount. In fact, the amount comes to only Rs.1,200/- per person per month, which is approximately Rs.40/- per day per person. Such an amount is extremely meagre and insufficient even to meet basic necessities such as food, milk and other daily expenses. It is also a common tendency in maintenance proceedings for the husband to suppress his true and actual income. During the pendency of the revision application, the wife obtained information under the Right to Information Act, and from the said information, it is revealed that the salary of the applicant is around Rs.72,000/- per month. In the year 2024, his basic salary was Rs.21,700/- per month. Therefore, no interference is called for, as the learned Family Court has properly appreciated the evidence on record while awarding maintenance. 7. 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, Page 4 of 7 Uploaded by ALI ISTAYAK(HC01093) on Fri Apr 10 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 10 19:00:06 IST 2026 R/CR.RA/1060/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/04/2026 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." 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 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 Page 5 of 7 Uploaded by ALI ISTAYAK(HC01093) on Fri Apr 10 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 10 19:00:06 IST 2026 R/CR.RA/1060/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/04/2026 required to be made in the case of Bhuwan Mohan Singh vs Meena , reported in 2015 (6) SCC 353 . 9. Further, this Court deems it apposite to refer to the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Usha Rani v. Moodudula Srinivas, passed in Criminal Appeal No. (S) of 2025 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.7660 of 2017) , and Mohd. Abdul Samad v. State of Telangana, reported in (2004) SCC OnLine SC 1686 , wherein the Court held as under: “43. In this context, I would like to advert to the vulnerability of married women in India who do not have an independent source of income or who do not have access to monetary resources in their households particularly for their personal expenses. In Indian society, it is an established practice that once a daughter is married, she resides with her husband and/or his family unless due to exigency of career or such other reason she has to reside elsewhere. In the case of a woman who has an independent source of income, she may be financially endowed and may not be totally dependent on her husband and his family. But what is the position of a married woman who is often referred to as a “homemaker” and who does not have an independent source of income, whatsoever, and is totally dependent for her financial resources on her husband and on his family? It is well-known that such an Indian homemaker tries to save as much money as possible from the monthly household budget, not only to augment the financial resources of the family but possibly to also save a small portion for her personal expenses. Such a practice is followed in order to avoid making a request to the husband or his family for her personal expenses. Most married men in India do not realise this aspect of the predicament such Indian homemakers face as any request made for expenses may be bluntly turned down by the husband and/or his family. Some husbands are not conscious of the fact that the wife who has no independent source of finance is dependent on them not only emotionally but also financially. On the other hand, a wife who is referred to as a homemaker is working throughout the day for the welfare of the family without expecting anything in return except possibly love and affection, a sense of comfort and respect from her husband and his family which are towards her emotional security. This may also be lacking in certain households. Page 6 of 7 Uploaded by ALI ISTAYAK(HC01093) on Fri Apr 10 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 10 19:00:06 IST 2026 R/CR.RA/1060/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/04/2026 44. XXX 45. Therefore, I observe that an Indian married man must become conscious of the fact that he would have to financially empower and provide for his wife, who does not have an independent source of income, by making available financial resources particularly towards her personal needs; in other words, giving access to his financial resources. Such financial empowerment would place such a vulnerable wife in a more secure position in the family. Those Indian married men who are conscious of this aspect and who make available their financial resources for their spouse towards their personal expenses, apart from household expenditure, possibly by having a joint bank account or via an ATM card, must be acknowledged.” 10. In the light of above it appears that 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 . 11. Accordingly, the present revision application stands dismissed. Rule is discharged. (HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J) ALI Page 7 of 7 Uploaded by ALI ISTAYAK(HC01093) on Fri Apr 10 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 10 19:00:06 IST 2026</div>