MINAXIBEN JITENDRAGIRI GOSWAMI vs JITENDRAGIRI SUKHDEVGIRI GOSWAMI

R/CR.RA/1211/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/10/2026
(GJHC240596592017)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (FOR MAINTENANCE) NO. 1211 of
2017

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO: Sd/-

==========================================================
Approved for Reporting No
==========================================================
MINAXIBEN JITENDRAGIRI GOSWAMI
Versus
JITENDRAGIRI SUKHDEVGIRI GOSWAMI & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR.SANAT B PANDYA(6976) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
HARSHADKUMAR D PANCHAL(9015) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MS. C.M. SHAH, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO

Date : 23/10/2026

ORAL JUDGMENT
1. By way of this application filed under Section 397 read
with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
(hereinafter referred to as "the Code"), the applicant - wife
has invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Court,
challenging the legality and validity of the judgment and
order dated 11.10.2017 passed by the learned Principal
Judge, Family Court, Nadiad below Exh.73 in Criminal
Misc. Application No.567 of 2017 [(Old) Criminal Misc.
Page 1 of 17
Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Mon Oct 26 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 27 03:04:59 IST 2026

R/CR.RA/1211/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/10/2026
(GJHC240596592017)
Application No. 157 of 2010], whereby the Family Court has
rejected the application filed by the applicant under Section
125 of the Code seeking maintenance from respondent no.1
- husband, with costs and has further directed that the
earlier order dated 30.01.2015, granting maintenance of
Rs.10,000/- per month to the applicant, stands cancelled,
with a further clarification that the amount already paid by
respondent no.1 towards maintenance shall not be liable to
be refunded by him.
2. The brief facts as emerging from the record are that
the marriage between the applicant and respondent no.1
was solemnized on 03.03.2006 as per Hindu rites and
rituals at Nadiad and soon after the marriage she resided
with respondent no.1 and his family in a joint family. The
respondent no.1, being in service with the Indian Army,
resumed his duty after about two months of the marriage. It
is the case of the applicant that in his absence, the
members of respondent no.1's family namely his parents,
his paternal uncle and his paternal aunt, subjected her to
physical and mental cruelty and taunted her over the
Page 2 of 17
Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Mon Oct 26 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 27 03:04:59 IST 2026

R/CR.RA/1211/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/10/2026
(GJHC240596592017)
streedhan brought by her at the time of marriage and on
25.03.2010, she was beaten and driven out of the
matrimonial home after she could not meet the demand of
Rs.50,000/- raised from her. It is the case of the applicant
that thereafter she has been residing at her parental home.
The respondent no.1 and his family never took steps to
bring her back or maintain her and that the respondent
no.1 being gainfully employed in the Army and earning a
substantial salary together with annual bonus and
allowances, is possessed of sufficient means to maintain
her, whereas she has no independent source of income or
vocational skill of her own.
3. The respondent no. 1 filed his affidavit, denying the
allegations levelled against him and his family as false,
exaggerated and an afterthought. It is the case of the
respondent no. 1 that though he used to avail leave from
service and return to the matrimonial home twice a year,
the applicant would, on one pretext or another, leave for her
parental home and would not spend adequate time with him
and she did not attend to her matrimonial obligations or to
Page 3 of 17
Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Mon Oct 26 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 27 03:04:59 IST 2026

R/CR.RA/1211/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/10/2026
(GJHC240596592017)
the service of his parents. It is the case of the respondent
no. 1 that during the subsistence of the marriage she
conceived, and got the pregnancy terminated at her parental
home in or about the year 2008 without his knowledge or
consent and without informing him or his family members
and that from 2008 onwards, the applicant has, of her own
volition and without any just or reasonable cause, refused
to reside with him despite efforts made in that behalf by his
father. It is the case of the respondent no. 1 that the
applicant, with the assistance of her brother, who is serving
in the police, thereafter lodged a complaint against him and
his family members including his uncle and aunt, who do
not even reside with him, under Section 498-A of the Indian
Penal Code read with the provisions of the Dowry
Prohibition Act in which all the accused came to be
acquitted and no appeal was preferred against the said
acquittal, which has since attained finality. It was submitted
that respondent no.1 does not possess the means or
agricultural property attributed to him and is, on the
contrary, required to maintain his aged parents and that he
Page 4 of 17
Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Mon Oct 26 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 27 03:04:59 IST 2026

R/CR.RA/1211/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/10/2026
(GJHC240596592017)
is not liable to pay maintenance to the applicant who has
deserted him without just and reasonable cause.
4. On perusal of the record, it appears that the applicant
had earlier instituted an application for maintenance under
Section 125 of the Code, registered as Criminal Misc.
Application No.157 of 2010 before the learned Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Nadiad. Upon respondent no.1
remaining absent, the said application was proceeded with
rd
ex-parte and the learned 3 Additional Judicial Magistrate
First Class, Nadiad, vide order dated 30.01.2015, allowed
the application and directed the respondent no.1 to pay
maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month with effect from the
date of the application, together with costs of Rs.2,000/-.
Respondent no.1 thereupon filed an application under
Section 125(2) of the Code, being Criminal Misc. Application
No.357 of 2015, to set aside the said ex-parte order, which,
upon constitution of the Family Court, Nadiad, came to be
transferred to and renumbered before the said Court as
Criminal Misc. Application No.22 of 2017. By order dated
18.03.2017 passed therein, the earlier order dated
Page 5 of 17
Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Mon Oct 26 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 27 03:04:59 IST 2026

R/CR.RA/1211/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/10/2026
(GJHC240596592017)
30.01.2015 was recalled with a direction for fresh
adjudication on merits, the maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per
month being continued only as an interim measure;
consequently, the original maintenance application, i.e.,
Criminal Misc. Application No.157 of 2010 was called for
and re-registered as Criminal Misc. Application No.567 of
2017, wherein the cross-examination of the applicant
already recorded was retained on record with the consent of
both sides and the matter thereafter proceeded to trial on
merits, culminating in the impugned judgment and order
dated 11.10.2017.
5. Upon appreciation of the oral and documentary
evidence adduced by the parties, the Family Court took into
account, inter alia, the record of the earlier criminal
complaint filed by the applicant against respondent no.1
and his family members under Section 498-A of the Indian
Penal Code read with the provisions of the Dowry
Prohibition Act which had culminated in acquittal of the
accused, a judgment which had attained finality without
challenge. The Family Court noted that the said complaint
Page 6 of 17
Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Mon Oct 26 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 27 03:04:59 IST 2026

R/CR.RA/1211/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/10/2026
(GJHC240596592017)
had been lodged about a month after the incident dated
25.03.2010, that the acquitting Court had, on appreciation
of the evidence, not accepted the applicant's version of
cruelty and dowry demand even in that proceeding and that
the applicant had, on her own showing as well as on the
material produced by respondent no.1, been residing at her
parental home since the year 2008, a fact which remained
substantially undisputed and was found inconsistent with
her claim of having been driven out only on 25.03.2010. The
Family Court further found that the applicant had
admittedly undergone termination of her pregnancy at her
parental home without the knowledge or consent of
respondent no.1 or his family and no cogent or satisfactory
explanation was furnished by her to counter respondent
no.1's case that she thereafter declined to return to and
cohabit at the matrimonial home despite efforts made in
that regard, including by his father. On a cumulative
appreciation of the aforesaid material, the Family Court
concluded that the applicant had failed to prove that she
was subjected to cruelty or was driven out by respondent
Page 7 of 17
Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Mon Oct 26 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 27 03:04:59 IST 2026

R/CR.RA/1211/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/10/2026
(GJHC240596592017)
no.1 or his family without cause and the respondent no.1
had, on the contrary, established that the applicant had
voluntarily withdrawn from his society and was not
discharging her matrimonial obligations towards him. The
Family Court further held that a wife who has, without
sufficient and reasonable cause, refused to live with her
husband or has voluntarily withdrawn from his society is
not entitled to claim maintenance under Section 125 of the
Code, placing reliance on the decisions in Vanitaben
Natvarlal & Ors. v. Naranbhai Raghavbhai Makwana,
reported in 1991 (2) GLR 101 (Guj.); Sunita Kachwaha v.
Anil Kachwaha, Criminal Appeal No.2310 of 2014, decided
on 28.10.2014 (SC); Debnarayan Halder v. Smt. Anushri
Halder, Criminal Appeal No.1069 of 2003, decided on
26.08.2003 (SC); and Meena Dinesh Parmar v. Dinesh
Hastimal Parmar, decided on 04.02.2005, reported in AIR
2005 Bom 288. Applying the principles laid down therein to
the facts found proved, the Family Court held that the
applicant was not entitled to any maintenance from
respondent no.1. The Family Court vide the impugned
Page 8 of 17
Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Mon Oct 26 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 27 03:04:59 IST 2026

R/CR.RA/1211/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/10/2026
(GJHC240596592017)
judgment and order dated 11.10.2017 rejected the
application filed by the applicant with costs and directed
that the earlier order dated 30.01.2015 granting monthly
maintenance of Rs.10,000/- (as continued by way of an
interim measure), stands cancelled and further clarified that
the amount already paid by respondent no.1 towards
maintenance shall not be liable to be refunded by him.
6. Being aggrieved, the applicant has preferred the
present Revision Application essentially on the grounds that
the impugned order is contrary to law, justice, equity and
good conscience; that respondent no.1 has not placed on
record any documentary evidence in support of his stated
source and quantum of income, save bald assertions on
affidavit; that the Family Court has placed reliance upon a
fake and concocted, and highly exaggerated, version put
forth by respondent no.1; and that, even assuming the
Family Court was justified in not accepting the applicant's
case in its entirety, it ought, having regard to respondent
no.1's income from salary and agriculture, to have
enhanced rather than altogether rejected the maintenance
Page 9 of 17
Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Mon Oct 26 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 27 03:04:59 IST 2026

R/CR.RA/1211/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/10/2026
(GJHC240596592017)
amount, particularly when the predecessor Court had
earlier granted Rs.10,000/- per month by order dated
30.01.2015.
7. When the matter was called out for hearing, learned
advocate Mr. Sanat Pandya for the applicant was not
present. Heard learned advocate Mr. Harshadkumar
Panchal for respondent no.1.
8. Learned advocate Mr. Harshadkumar Panchal for
respondent no.1 has supported the impugned judgment and
order and submits that the Family Court, upon due
appreciation of the entire oral and documentary evidence
including the record of the earlier criminal proceedings
instituted by the applicant which culminated in acquittal of
the accused therein, has recorded a considered and possible
finding of fact that the applicant had herself deserted
respondent no.1 without any reasonable or sufficient cause
since the year 2008 and that such finding, being based on
proper appreciation of evidence and unattended by any
perversity or illegality, does not warrant interference by this
Court in exercise of its limited revisional jurisdiction.
Page 10 of 17
Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Mon Oct 26 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 27 03:04:59 IST 2026

R/CR.RA/1211/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/10/2026
(GJHC240596592017)
Learned advocate has further placed on record the affidavit
dated 28.04.2026 filed by respondent no.1 to submit that
respondent no.1 stands retired from service with effect from
29.02.2020 and is presently in receipt of pension of
Rs.31,949/- per month only. Learned advocate further
submits that he is in indifferent health, suffering from chest
and body pain and is required to look after and bear the
medical expenses of his aged parents as his father being a
cardiac patient and his mother suffering from a kidney
ailment as also his paternal aunt, all of whom reside with
and are dependent upon him and a sum of Rs.1,35,000/-
had already been paid by him towards maintenance for the
period from 15.06.2015 to 17.10.2016 pursuant to the
earlier interim order. Learned advocate further submits that
in these circumstances, apart from the applicant not being
entitled to any maintenance at all, the prayer for
enhancement of the amount is, in any event, misconceived
and factually unsustainable, and deserves to be rejected.
9. At the outset, it is necessary to bear in mind the
limited scope of interference available to this Court while
Page 11 of 17
Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Mon Oct 26 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 27 03:04:59 IST 2026

R/CR.RA/1211/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/10/2026
(GJHC240596592017)
exercising jurisdiction under Sections 397 and 401 of the
Code. Revisional jurisdiction is essentially supervisory in
character and cannot be equated with appellate jurisdiction.
The Revisional Court is not expected to undertake a fresh
appreciation of the entire evidence merely for the purpose of
arriving at a conclusion different from that reached by the
Court below, and this holds equally true in respect of a
challenge confined to the quantum, or the very entitlement,
of maintenance.
9.1 In State of Kerala v. Puttumana Illath Jathavedan
Namboodiri , reported in (1999) 2 SCC 452 , the Hon'ble
Supreme Court, in Para-5, has observed as under:
"5. In its revisional jurisdiction, the High Court can call for and
examine the record of any proceedings for the purpose of
satisfying itself as to the correctness or propriety of any finding,
sentence or order. In other words, the jurisdiction is one of
supervisory jurisdiction exercised by the High Court for correcting
miscarriage of justice. But the said revisional power cannot be
equated with the power of an Appellate Court, nor can it be
treated even as a second appellate jurisdiction. Ordinarily,
therefore, it would not be appropriate for the High Court to re-
appreciate the evidence and come to its own conclusion on the
same when the evidence has already been appreciated by the
Court below, unless any glaring feature is brought to the notice of
Page 12 of 17
Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Mon Oct 26 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 27 03:04:59 IST 2026

R/CR.RA/1211/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/10/2026
(GJHC240596592017)
the High Court which would otherwise tantamount to gross
miscarriage of justice."
9.2 In Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander , reported in
(2012) 9 SCC 460 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Para-12,
has observed as under:
"12. The jurisdiction of the Court under Section 397 can be
exercised so as to examine the correctness, legality or propriety of
an order passed by the trial court or the inferior court, as the case
may be. Though the section does not specifically use the
expression 'prevent abuse of process of any court or otherwise to
secure the ends of justice', the jurisdiction under Section 397 is a
very limited one. The legality, propriety or correctness of an order
passed by a court is the very foundation of exercise of jurisdiction
under Section 397, but ultimately it also requires justice to be
done. The jurisdiction could be exercised where there is palpable
error, non-compliance with the provisions of law, the decision is
completely erroneous, or where the judicial discretion is exercised
arbitrarily."
9.3 Thus, unless the finding recorded by the Family Court
is shown to be perverse, based on no evidence, arrived at
without application of mind, or is so unreasonable as to
shock the conscience of the Court, this Court would not be
justified in interfering with such finding by undertaking a
fresh re-appreciation of the evidence.
Page 13 of 17
Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Mon Oct 26 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 27 03:04:59 IST 2026

R/CR.RA/1211/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/10/2026
(GJHC240596592017)
10. Adverting to the facts of the present case, this Court
finds that the finding recorded by the Family Court on the
question of cruelty and desertion is not one arrived at
without evidence or in disregard of material on record; on
the contrary, it is founded upon a detailed appreciation of
the oral testimony of both parties, read in conjunction with
the record of the earlier criminal proceedings instituted by
the applicant herself, wherein her very allegations of cruelty
and dowry demand came to be disbelieved by a competent
Court, a finding which has attained finality. No material has
been pointed out, either in the memo of the present Revision
Application or otherwise, to show that the Family Court has
ignored any relevant piece of evidence, relied upon
inadmissible material, or proceeded upon a wrong or non-
existent premise. Moreover, the alternative grievance raised
in the memo of Revision namely that even if the applicant's
case regarding cruelty was not accepted, the Family Court
ought to have enhanced rather than rejected the
maintenance, proceeds on a misconception of the statutory
scheme of Section 125 of the Code. Once the very
Page 14 of 17
Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Mon Oct 26 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 27 03:04:59 IST 2026

R/CR.RA/1211/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/10/2026
(GJHC240596592017)
foundation of the applicant's claim that she was compelled
to live separately on account of cruelty and dowry-
harassment at the hands of respondent no.1 and his family
is found not proved, and on the contrary, it is found that
she has, without sufficient and reasonable cause,
withdrawn from the society of respondent no.1, the question
of granting or enhancing maintenance does not arise, since
a spouse who has voluntarily deserted the other without
just cause is disentitled, in view of the settled legal position
noticed by the Family Court from claiming maintenance
under Section 125 of the Code, irrespective of the paying
capacity of the other spouse.
11. The grounds urged in the memo of the Revision
Application, in substance, seek a fresh re-appreciation of
the evidence on the question of desertion/cruelty, which is
impermissible in the exercise of this Court's limited
revisional jurisdiction, more so when the finding recorded
by the Family Court is a plausible view supported by the
material on record and no perversity, illegality or
jurisdictional error has been demonstrated. It may also be
Page 15 of 17
Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Mon Oct 26 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 27 03:04:59 IST 2026

R/CR.RA/1211/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/10/2026
(GJHC240596592017)
noted that despite the matter being called out, learned
advocate for the applicant has chosen to remain absent and
has not addressed this Court in support of the grounds
raised in the memo of Revision Application.
12. For the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the applicant has failed to make out
any case of perversity, illegality, jurisdictional error or
material irregularity in the impugned judgment and order,
warranting interference in exercise of the revisional
jurisdiction of this Court under Sections 397 and 401 of the
Code.
13. In the result, the present Criminal Revision Application
fails and is hereby dismissed. The judgment and order dated
11.10.2017 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family
Court, Nadiad, below Exh.73 in Criminal Misc. Application
No.567 of 2017 [(Old) Criminal Misc. Application No. 157 of
2010], is hereby confirmed.
14. Rule stands discharged. Interim relief, if any, granted
earlier stands vacated.
Page 16 of 17
Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Mon Oct 26 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 27 03:04:59 IST 2026

R/CR.RA/1211/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/10/2026
(GJHC240596592017)
15. It is clarified that the observations made hereinabove
are confined to the adjudication of the present Revision
Application and shall not affect any other independent
proceedings between the parties.
Sd/-
(S. V. PINTO,J)
VASIM S. SAIYED
Page 17 of 17
Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Mon Oct 26 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 27 03:04:59 IST 2026