AARIFBHAI ISMAILBHAI RADHANPURIversusSTATE OF GUJARAT
- Disposal
- 28-REJECTED @ ADM.STAGE
- Bench
- GITA GOPI
Holding
The father is not entitled to maintenance from his son and the revision application is dismissed.
Summary
The 55‑year‑old father filed a revision application seeking maintenance from his 28‑year‑old son after the Family Court rejected his earlier criminal miscellaneous application. The Family Court had noted that the father’s marriage to the mother of the son was under Muslim personal law, that the mother had obtained a maintenance order against the father under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, and that the father had transferred property to evade payment. The son contended that the father had divorced the mother, remarried, runs a commission‑based clothing business and is already supporting a second family. The High Court observed that the Family Court had properly examined the evidence, that the father is financially capable and is maintaining his second family, and found no legal basis for the father to claim maintenance from his son. Consequently, the Court dismissed the revision application, holding that there is no cause for the father to seek maintenance from his son. The order was pronounced by Justice Gita Gopi on 5 May 2026.
Issues considered
- Whether a father is entitled to claim maintenance from his adult son under the applicable law.
- Whether the revision application filed by the father is maintainable in view of the Family Court’s findings.
Legislation cited
Subjects
Judgment
R/CR.RA/1349/2026 ORDER DATED: 05/05/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (FOR MAINTENANCE) NO. 1349
of 2026
==========================================================
AARIFBHAI ISMAILBHAI RADHANPURI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR.WASIM M PATHAN(6802) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR PRANAV DHAGAT APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
Date : 05/05/2026
ORDER
1. The applicant as a father aged about 55 years has made
a prayer for maintenance against his son aged about 28 years
before the Family Court No.8, Ahmedabad, whereby his
application being Criminal Misc. Application No.89 of 2025
came to be rejected. Aggrieved by the order, the present
revision application has been filed.
2. The Family Court has noted about the marriage of the
present applicant with the mother of the respondent No.2 in
the year 1995 as per the Muslim Shariat Law and out of the
said matrimonial life, they have one son i.e. the respondent
No.2 and a daughter. In the year 2001 due to the dispute, they
had started residing separately and the mother had filed
Criminal Misc. Application No.160 of 2007 under Domestic
Violence Act before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class,
Dholka and an order was passed on 05.10.2024 for the
maintenance and for the rent amount. The present applicant,
therefore was ordered to pay the maintenance amount and the
Page 1 of 2
R/CR.RA/1349/2026 ORDER DATED: 05/05/2026
rent amount to the mother of the respondent.
3. As per the respondent son, the father had given divorce
to his mother and has remarried and from that marriage, he is
having one daughter. He is having his own business on
commission basis from the sale of clothes. It is also recorded
in the judgment that in order to avoid the payment of
maintenance amount, he has transferred his property. As per
the observation of the Family Court Judge, it was the mother,
who had taken care of the respondent son and had also
undertook the huge medical expense, and the petition for
maintenance amount from the son has been filed to scuttle the
proceedings of the mother under the Domestic Violence Act.
4. This Court does not find any reason to entertain the
application, having noticed that the learned Judge of the
Family Court has dealt with all the disputes and has rightly
analysed the evidence on record. The father is able body and
earning sufficient enough and is also maintaining his second
family.
5. Thus, this Court has not found any cause for the father
to ask for any maintenance amount from the son. There is no
reason to entertain the application, hence the present
application stands rejected.
(GITA GOPI,J)
Pankaj/9
Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967), PRINCIPAL PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 05/05/2026 18:02:27
Page 2 of 2
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.