JITENDRAKUMAR AMBALAL KONDI vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

R/CR.RA/624/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/04/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (FOR MAINTENANCE) NO. 624 of
2014

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR

==========================================================

JITENDRAKUMAR AMBALAL KONDI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
ADVOCATE NOTICE SERVED for the Applicant(s) No. 1
BELABEN M NAYAK(7722) for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3,4
MR BHUNESH C RUPERA(3896) for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3,4
MS SHRUTI PATHAK, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================

Date : 06/04/2026
JUDGMENT
1. It is required to be noted that on 31.07.2025, an advocate's
notice was issued to the applicant, as his earlier advocate had
been appointed as a Public Prosecutor. Though served, none
appears for the applicant. Therefore, it clearly appears that the
applicant is not interested in prosecuting the present matter.
Hence, in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the
case of Taj Mohammad v. State of Uttar Pradesh, decided on
11.08.2023 in Criminal Appeal No.2421 of 2023 , this Court
has considered the averments made in the application as well as
the material placed on record and has proceeded to decide the
matter in the absence of the applicant based on available
Page 1 of 5
Uploaded by ALI ISTAYAK(HC01093) on Tue Apr 07 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 07 18:24:15 IST 2026

R/CR.RA/624/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/04/2026
material on record.
2. By way of the present application, the applicant has
requested this Court to quash and set aside the judgment and
order dated 18.01.2014 passed by the learned Family Court
No.1, Ahmedabad in Criminal Misc. Application No.1202 of
2013.
3. It is the case of the applicant that the marriage between
the petitioner and respondent No. 1 was solemnized on
03.03.2002 according to Hindu rites and rituals, and out of the
said wedlock, respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were born. According to
the petitioner, initially the matrimonial life of the parties was
cordial; however, with the passage of time, respondent No. 1
started quarrelling with the petitioner and his family members
on trivial issues. It is the case of the petitioner that despite his
efforts to maintain the matrimonial relationship and provide all
necessary facilities, respondent No. 1 left the matrimonial home
on 26.08.2007 and thereafter filed Criminal Misc. Application
No. 2934 of 2007 seeking maintenance. The said application
came to be partly allowed by the learned Court vide order dated
14.05.2013, whereby maintenance of Rs.2,500/- per month was
awarded to respondent No. 1, Rs.2,000/- per month to
respondent No. 2 and Rs.1,500/- per month to respondent No. 3
from the date of filing of the application, along with Rs.1,000/-
towards costs. Thereafter, respondent Nos. 1 to 3 filed Criminal
Misc. Application No. 1202 of 2013 under Section 125(3) of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for recovery of arrears of
maintenance, and by the impugned order dated 18.01.2014, the
Page 2 of 5
Uploaded by ALI ISTAYAK(HC01093) on Tue Apr 07 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 07 18:24:15 IST 2026

R/CR.RA/624/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/04/2026
learned Family Court, Ahmedabad directed the petitioner to
undergo simple imprisonment for 660 days. It is the case of the
petitioner that he has been in judicial custody since the passing
of the said order.
4. It appears from the record that for recovery of the
maintenance amount of Rs.3,97,000/-, a recovery application
came to be filed as the applicant failed to comply with the order.
Thereafter, the applicant voluntarily appeared before the learned
Family Court and submitted an application below Exhibit 6
requesting the Court to take up the matter on board on
18.01.2014. The applicant also submitted a separate application
below Exhibit 7 stating that he wanted to surrender before the
Court as he was unable to pay the maintenance amount and
requested the Court to impose a lesser sentence. Thereafter,
below Exhibit 8, the learned Court recorded the statement and
verification of the applicant, wherein he admitted that he has to
pay maintenance of Rs.3,97,000/- to his wife and children. He
further admitted that he had received the notice but was unable
to make the payment as he did not possess any movable or
immovable property. He also stated that he was unable to
maintain the respondents and was not ready and willing to pay
the said amount. The applicant did not seek any further time for
payment and straightway admitted his liability. The Court
explained to him that, in case of failure to make payment, he
would have to undergo sentence, and after understanding the
said consequences, he affirmed his signature on 18.01.2014.
5. In the aforesaid background, the learned Family Court
Page 3 of 5
Uploaded by ALI ISTAYAK(HC01093) on Tue Apr 07 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 07 18:24:15 IST 2026

R/CR.RA/624/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/04/2026
passed an order imposing ten days' simple imprisonment for
default of each month’s maintenance. Since the default
pertained to 66 months, a total sentence of 660 days was
imposed after granting the benefit of set-off. Considering the
aforesaid facts, the sentence of ten days for each month of
default cannot be said to be disproportionate. The applicant
himself had surrendered and admitted his liability and inability
to pay. Therefore, no irregularity has been committed by the
learned Family Judge and no case is made out for interference in
revisional jurisdiction.
6. 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
required to be made in the case of Bhuwan Mohan Singh vs
Meena , reported in 2015 (6) SCC 353 .
7. 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
Page 4 of 5
Uploaded by ALI ISTAYAK(HC01093) on Tue Apr 07 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 07 18:24:15 IST 2026

R/CR.RA/624/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/04/2026
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 .
8. Accordingly, the present revision application stands
dismissed.
(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J)
ALI
Page 5 of 5
Uploaded by ALI ISTAYAK(HC01093) on Tue Apr 07 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 07 18:24:15 IST 2026