VASANTBHAI PREMJIBHAI VEKARIYAversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

   R/CR.RA/175/2022                            JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2026




IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
  R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (FOR MAINTENANCE) NO. 175 of 2022
                                  With
          CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2022
           In R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 175 of 2022
                                  With
 CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR VACATING INTERIM RELIEF) NO. 1 of 2023
           In R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 175 of 2022
                                  With
      CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR INTERIM RELIEF) NO. 1 of 2024
           In R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 175 of 2022



FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
==========================================================
        Approved for Reporting               Yes   No
                                                    √
==========================================================
               VASANTBHAI PREMJIBHAI VEKARIYA
                              Versus
                    STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR ASHISH M DAGLI(2203) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR DARSHIT R BRAHMBHATT(8011) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR ROHAN RAVAL, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
  CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR

                           Date : 24/04/2026
                            JUDGMENT

       RULE. Learned APP Mr. Rohan Raval and learned advocate Mr.
Darshit Brahmbhatt waive service of notice of Rule for and on behalf
of respective respondents. With the consent of learned advocates
appearing for the respective parties, present application is taken up
for final hearing today.

[1.0] Present criminal revision application under Section 397 read
with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter



                               Page 1 of 15
   R/CR.RA/175/2022                              JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2026




referred to as “CrPC”) has been preferred by the applicant herein –
husband requesting to quash and set aside the order dated
10.12.2021 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court,
Anand in Criminal Misc. Application No.81 of 2019, whereby the
applicant is directed to pay Rs.50,000/ per month towards monthly
maintenance to respondent No.2 from the date of application i.e.
12.03.2019.

[2.0] The brief facts of the case of the applicant are as follows:

[2.1] The respondent No.2 – wife filed an application under Section
125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “CrPC”),
contending that her marriage with the applicant was solemnized on
01.06.1995 at Gondal. Post marriage, both parties resided together in
a rented premises at Vidhyanagar and the respondent No.2 also
assisted the applicant in his business. Out of the wedlock, a male child,
namely Aditya, was born on 03.08.1999. It is further contended that
the parties jointly acquired immovable property at Shanti Devasiya
Bungalows in the year 2016. However, matrimonial relations between
the parties became strained over the past decade, and they have not
been on speaking terms for the last five years. Allegations of mental
and physical harassment have also been made by the respondent
No.2. The respondent No.2 has further stated that a mortgage deed
dated 21.08.2012 (No. 7226 of 2012) was executed with HDFC Bank in
respect of joint property, and a similar document was executed on
26.09.2017. It is also alleged that eight cheques of ₹15 lakhs each,
issued by Canon Company, were found in the possession of the
applicant at the matrimonial home. Due to the applicant’s failure to
provide regular financial support for day-to-day expenses, the
respondent No.2 filed the present application under Section 125 CrPC



                                Page 2 of 15
   R/CR.RA/175/2022                              JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2026




on 12.03.2019 before the Family Court, Anand. During the pendency
of the proceedings, an application for interim maintenance (Exh.6) was
filed in Criminal Misc. Application No. 81 of 2019. The applicant
appeared and filed written objections (Exh.10). The Family Court, by
order on the interim application, directed the applicant to pay
₹15,000/- per month as interim maintenance from the date of
application. The said order was challenged by the applicant before the
Hon’ble High Court by way of Special Criminal Application No. 7239 of
2019, wherein notice was issued and interim stay was granted. The
petition was subsequently disposed of. Thereafter, the main
proceedings were heard on merits. Both documentary evidence and
written submissions were placed on record. Evidence on record
indicates that the respondent No.2 resided with the applicant in the
same house until 10.12.2019. An Income Tax Officer, Ms. Jyotiben
Rathod, was also examined as PW-2 (Exh.29). Upon conclusion of the
proceedings, the Learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Anand, by
order dated 10.12.2021 in Criminal Misc. Application No. 81 of 2019,
directed the applicant to pay ₹50,000/- per month towards
maintenance to respondent No.2 from the date of application i.e.
12.03.2019. Hence, present revision application is filed.


[3.0] Learned Advocate Mr. Ashish M. Dagli appearing for the
applicant has submitted that the impugned order passed by the
learned Family Court is unjust, improper and contrary to the settled
principles of law, as the Court below has failed to consider and
properly appreciate the oral as well as documentary evidence on
record and has proceeded mainly on assumptions and presumptions.
He has further submitted that the Court has overlooked the material
fact that at the time of filing the application under Section 125 CrPC,
the respondent No.2 was residing with the applicant and her expenses


                                Page 3 of 15
   R/CR.RA/175/2022                                 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2026




were being borne by him, thereby rendering the application itself not
maintainable. Further, though interim maintenance was fixed at
₹15,000/- per month after hearing both sides, the same has been
arbitrarily enhanced to ₹50,000/- per month in the final order without
any cogent material. He has further submitted that the Court below
has ignored crucial evidence regarding the applicant’s income,
including Income Tax returns, audit reports and the testimony of the
Income Tax Officer, and has also failed to consider that the applicant’s
business has suffered, particularly post-COVID-19, resulting in
substantial reduction in income. He has further submitted that the
evidence of witness Raj Sureshchandra Tiwari (Exh.58) supporting the
financial difficulties of the applicant has also been disregarded.
Moreover, the respondent No.2 has admitted that the applicant has
been regularly depositing amounts in the joint bank account and
bearing household as well as educational expenses of their son. He
has submitted that therefore the impugned order imposes an
excessive and unrealistic financial burden on the applicant beyond his
means and has been passed ignoring material evidence on record. He
has further submitted that the proceedings have been initiated with
mala fide intention to harass and pressurize the applicant. He has
further submitted that due to recession in the business, applicant is
unable to pay such exorbitant amount of maintenance to the
respondent – wife and hence, he has requested to quash and set aside
the impugned order in the interest of justice.

[4.0] Learned         advocate   Mr.   Brahmbhatt     appearing       for    the
respondent – wife has opposed the present revision application and at
the outset, he has submitted that in the present case, attitude of the
applicant – husband is required to be considered. The recalcitrant
attitude of the applicant is not to pay the maintenance to the wife in


                                   Page 4 of 15
   R/CR.RA/175/2022                              JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2026




any circumstances and only with a view to harass the poor lady, who is
suffering from cancer though fully aware of the ailment of wife, the
applicant – husband has left no stone unturned to harass the poor lady
and show has been created qua inability to pay the maintenance in the
name of exorbitant award of maintenance which is nothing but an eye-
wash. The applicant is having the franchise and business in the name
and style of Rutumn Enterprise at Vidyanagar wherein the applicant is
the proprietor and he is authorized dealer of Canon Company. The fact
of auction of house is mentioned only with a view to avoid the liability.
He has further submitted that time and again the applicant has
obtained loan after the said incident of alleged auction. Not only that,
the turn over in the HDFC Current Bank Account runs into crores of
rupees and bank itself has given overdraft facility to the tune of Rs.50
lakh and with 5% net profit and margin annual income is not less than
Rs.50 lakh. He has further submitted that while the application was
filed, at that time, the applicant was enjoying tour at Dubai and is also
having bungalow, flats and applicant is not having any other liability
and only to show his income, the applicant has mentioned in his
affidavit that his income is monthly Rs.12,000/- to Rs.15,000/- but now
the son of the applicant and respondent has attained the age of
majority and he is studying abroad. He has further submitted that
another stand taken by the applicant is that the respondent – wife is
earning but infact the respondent – wife was attending Rutumn
Enterprise as part-time worker so as to help the applicant – husband in
the business and the salary towards the same was credited in her
account but actual beneficiary is the applicant – husband.

[4.1] He has further submitted that the applicant has suppressed his
income and has intentionally produced the income tax returns for the
years from 2013 to 2020 at Exhs.30 to 36. Thereafter, intentionally,


                                Page 5 of 15
   R/CR.RA/175/2022                               JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2026




the applicant has avoided to submit the Profit & Loss Account only for
suppressing the income and subsequently the applicant has examined
the Income Tax Officer and tried to show and portray that he is
earning only Rs.2 lakh per annum. Over and above, Dubai, the
applicant used to frequently travel abroad and has visited Japan,
Macau, Netherlands, Australia and Bangkok which clearly reveals that
the applicant is living a luxurious life. He has further submitted that
only to show that canon company sponsored the applicant on his
achieving the targets of sale, is nothing but an eye-wash. He has
submitted that even if the said contention is accepted without
admitting then also applicant is able to meet with or achieve the
target given by canon company, it clearly reveals that the applicant is
able to fulfill the target as a Distributor and his turn over is huge. Even
in the year 2015 also, the applicant visited Bangkok, Thailand,
Singapore and Amsterdam and perusing the evidence of Regional
Business Manager of Canon company, it appears that applicant has
successfully achieved the target given by the company. Now, the
applicant is taking the plea that his distributorship of Surat is closed
but if the said documentary evidence is perused, it clearly reveals that
during one year, from Rutumn Enterprise situated at Surat, cash of
Rs.25 lakh was stolen and in this regard, the applicant himself has filed
one complaint with Umra Police Station which clearly reveals that
business is continuous and applicant is earning. Not only that, the
applicant has also lodged one complaint against Nonex Service at
Vadodara for recovery of the amount towards goods supplied to the
said firm which clearly reveals that Rs.15 lakh is yet to be recovered
from Nonex Service, which clearly shows that the applicant is engaged
in continuous business and considering his investments in Mediclaim,
LIC, Mutual Funds and medical insurance, for which documentary
evidences are produced at Exhs.68 to 74, learned Family Judge has not

                                 Page 6 of 15
   R/CR.RA/175/2022                             JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2026




committed any error more particularly considering the basic
requirement to maintain the wife as well as the expenses to be
incurred by wife towards her ailment of cancer and therefore, the
learned Family Judge has rightly awarded Rs.50,000/-. He has further
submitted that not only that, from the medical insurance, for the year
2020, Rs.1.70 lakh came to be received from the insurance company
and towards second installment, Rs.2.75 lakh were credited in the
account of present applicant however, till date, the applicant has not
paid the same to the respondent – wife. Considering this conduct of
the applicant, he has requested to dismiss the revision application.

[4.2] He has further submitted that the applicant is intended to
anyhow harass the poor lady who is suffering from cancer. Earlier, ex
parte interim relief was granted on condition to deposit Rs.2 lakh
towards maintenance withing two weeks thereafter and the applicant
has enjoyed the interim relief for a pretty long time and therefore, the
respondent – wife filed Interim Application for vacating the interim
relief and after giving an opportunity, the coordinate Bench has been
pleased to vacate the interim relief. Thereafter, the application under
Section 125(3) of the CrPC was filed wherein the warrant upon the
applicant remained unexecuted but in connection with another
offence under the Land Grabbing Act, applicant was arrested by way
of transfer warrant. Even though, rather than paying the maintenance,
the applicant opt to go behind the bars. Thereafter, the applicant
approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court by way of filing Special Leave
to Appeal (Cri.) No.10385/2024, which came to be dismissed as
withdrawn on 09.08.2024. In view of above facts, he has requested to
dismiss the revision application.

[5.0] Having heard learned advocates appearing for the respective



                                Page 7 of 15
   R/CR.RA/175/2022                             JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2026




parties and perusing the record, it appears that relationship between
the applicant and respondent as husband and wife is not in dispute
and their son has attained the age of majority and is staying abroad.
Only wife had filed an application under Section 125 of the CrPC for
getting maintenance. Before the learned Family Judge, evidence came
to be led more particularly evidence of husband below Exh.68,
wherein the husband has tried to show that in the name of
respondent – wife, he has invested in mutual funds and husband is
paying insurance premium and is also bearing educational expenses
like college fee etc. of his son. But the documents produced on record
reveals that in the year 2021, for the ailment of cancer, respondent –
wife had withdrawn the amount / funds from mutual fund on
23.09.2021. The applicant – husband was running the business in the
name of Rutumn Enterprise and having franchise of canon company
and he achieved the target and turnover of the said firm is produced
on record. Further, since last five years, the applicant – husband has
neglected the respondent – wife and due to this reason, she left the
matrimonial home and was compelled to live at her parental home and
during the said desertion period, she was detected with cancer and
she is under ailment which reveals from the record. It is the case of the
husband that property was a joint property in the name of husband
and wife which was mortgaged with the HDFC Bank towards loan
facility of Rs.50 lakh but as the account became NPA, to recover the
said amount, said property / house was put for auction and applicant
having no any business and having income of only Rs.2.23 lakh to
Rs.2.12 lakh for the years 2018-19 and 2019-20 respectively and to
prove the said income, applicant has examined Income Tax Officer
Mrs. Jyotiben Dineshbhai Rathod (Exh.29). The income tax forms for
the period from 2013-14 to 2019-20 i.e. 7 in number have been filed at
Exhs.30 to 37. But for the last return, no any Profit & Loss Account is

                                Page 8 of 15
   R/CR.RA/175/2022                             JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2026




produced on record and only acknowledgement is produced.

[5.1] Learned Family Court has also considered the said evidence and
come to the conclusion that the applicant – husband having the
business at Surat and Anand and he is Distributor of canon company.
As per the say of husband, the distributorship is closed and wound up
in the year 2018 but no any evidence in that regard is produced on
record. But, if we peruse the document produced on record qua
alleged theft of Rs.25 lakh in cash committed in the office of applicant
at Surat, it shows the potentiality of the applicant to earn from the
business and proceeding to recover the amount of Rs.15 lakh from
one Nonex Services is also filed by the applicant and even there are
other properties situated at Vallabh Vidyanagar, Anand and
investments in mutual funds are also there.

[5.2] Learned Family Judge come to the conclusion that the applicant
is earning monthly Rs.1,50,000/- considering the statement of liability
and assets filed by both the parties before the Family Court. In
absence of any evidence, the learned Family Judge has not accepted
the fact that the business is closed down and applicant is unable to
maintain the respondent – wife or to pay the maintenance to his wife.
The applicant has assailed the impugned order on the ground that the
respondent – wife is holding degree of B.Sc. (Home Science) and
Fashion Designing and she is able to maintain herself but merely
because wife is able to maintain herself is not a ground to avoid the
responsibility / liability to maintain the wife more particularly
considering the ailment of cancer. To maintain herself and to meet
with the expenses of treatment also, learned Family Judge has
properly awarded Rs.50,000/- monthly after appreciating the evidence
and therefore, this Court is of considered view that no interference is



                               Page 9 of 15
   R/CR.RA/175/2022                                JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2026




required more particularly in view of the evidence led before the
learned Family Judge. Herein, no any evidence led before the learend
Family Judge to show that wife is able to maintain herself and having
income or engaged in any gainful profession. Even, merely wife is
capable of earning is not a sufficient ground to reduce the
maintenance. Herein, no any evidence is there on record which
suggests that respondent – wife is working. In this regard, reference is
required to be made to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
the case of Shailja and Another vs. Khobbanna reported in (2018) 12
SCC 199; Sunita Kachwaha & Ors. vs. Anil Kachwaha reported in
(2014)16 SCC 715 as well as Chaturbhuj vs. Sita Bai reported in
(2008) 2 SCC 316, wherein it has been observed and held as under:

       “Where the wife was surviving by begging, it would not amount to
       her ability to maintain herself. It can also be not said that the wife
       has been capable of earning but she was not making an effort to
       earn. Whether the deserted wife was unable to maintain herself,
       has to be decided on the basis of the material placed on record.
       Where the personal income of the wife is insufficient she can claim
       maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The test is whether the
       wife is in a position to maintain herself in the way she was used to
       in the place of her husband. The wife should be in a position to
       maintain standard of living which is neither luxurious nor
       penurious but what is consistent with status of a family. The
       expression "unable to maintain herself" does not mean that the
       wife must be absolutely destitute before she can apply for
       maintenance under Section 125 CrPC.”

[5.3] Learned advocate appearing for the applicant has relied on the
evidence of Income Tax Officer (Exh.29) and last two income tax
returns but it is needless to say that filing of the proceeding under
Section 125 of the CrPC is a common practice to avoid the
responsibility. Considering the matrimonial conflict, there is a
tendency to underestimate the income. Herein also, after alleged
auction of the property, another loan was received from various


                                 Page 10 of 15
   R/CR.RA/175/2022                             JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2026




branches at Surat and different places which clearly reveals that for
the business purpose loan was got sanctioned and thus, it is clear that
the applicant is engaged in continuous business. Not only that, only
two Income Tax Returns are not enough considering the law laid down
by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kiran Tomar and Others
vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another reported in 2022 (0) AIJEL-
SC 70464 as the income tax return filed in the year 2018-19
subsequent to filing of proceeding under Section 125 of the CrPC and
in the said decision it has been held that income tax returns do not
necessarily furnish an accurate guide of real income of the applicant
more particularly when the parties are engaged in a matrimonial
conflict and there is a tendency to underestimate the income to avoid
the liability. Hence, learned Family Judge has properly ignored the
said evidence and based on the evidence and material produced on
record, assessed the income of the applicant – husband.

[5.4] Further, the object of proceeding under Section 125 of the CrPC
is beneficial legislation. Further, it is also required to be noted that
neither the applicant has produced any evidence regarding the
earning of his wife nor her means to sustain herself, before the
learned Family Judge. From the various judgments of the Hon’ble
Supreme 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. The law is clear that
husband is bound to maintain his wife and minor children and if a
husband is negligent and does not pay maintenance to wife or
children as awarded by the Court, then how such a person is entitled
to the relief claimed by him in the matrimonial proceedings. In this
regard, reference is required to be made to the decision of this Court
in the case of Miteshbhai Dinkarbhai Makvana vs. State of Gujarat


                               Page 11 of 15
   R/CR.RA/175/2022                             JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2026




reported in 2025(0) AIJEL-HC 250224. Further, in the case of Bhuwan
Mohan Singh vs. Meena & Ors. reported in (2015) 6 SCC 353 and
Anju Garg and Ors. vs. Deepak Kumar Garg reported in 2022 SCC
OnLine (SC) 1314, it is held that it is the sacrosanct duty of the
husband to provide financial support to the wife and minor children,
the husband was required to earn money even by physical labour, if he
is able-bodied, and could not avoid his obligation, except on any
legally permissible ground mentioned in the statute. Therefore, the
argument canvassed by the learned advocate for the applicant that
the applicant is unable to maintain his wife – respondent herein and
unable to pay the maintenance on the ground that franchise of canon
company is now closed down is not acceptable. It is needless to say
considering the statement and status with which the respondent –
wife was living at the time of her desertion and therefore, learned
Sessions Judge has not committed any error considering the peculiar
facts of the case more particularly considering the fact that the
respondent – wife has to incur medical expenses towards her ailment
of cancer, award of Rs.50,000/- towards monthly maintenance is just
and proper and merely because the business of the applicant is closed
down and recession is not a ground to deny the maintenance more
particularly considering the able-bodied principle and considering
potentiality to earn more. It goes without saying that it is the duty of
the husband to maintain his wife and children. In this regard,
reference is required to be made to the decision of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of Anju Garg vs. Deepak Kumar Garg
reported in 2022 SCC OnLine (SC) 1314. Further, in the case of
Rajnesh vs. Neha & Ors. reported in (2021)2 SCC 324, the Hon’ble
Supreme relying on its decision in the case of Reema Salkan vs.
Sumer Singh Salkan reported in (2019) 12 SCC 303 observed that the
Court must have due regard to the standard of living of the husband,

                               Page 12 of 15
   R/CR.RA/175/2022                               JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2026




as well as the spiralling inflation rates and high costs of living. The plea
of the husband that he does not possess any source of income ipso
facto does not absolve him of his moral duty to maintain his wife if he
is able bodied and has educational qualifications. Further, while
awarding the maintenance, Court has to consider all relevant factors
and the test for determination of maintenance in matrimonial dispute
depends on the financial status of wife and the standard of living that
the wife was accustomed to in her matrimonial home and amount of
maintenance should aid the wife to live in a similar life style as she
enjoyed in the matrimonial home. Merely applicant – husband is
having a liability to repay loan is not a ground to reduce the
maintenance amount. In this regard, reference is required to be made
to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Deepa
Joshi vs. Gaurav Joshi reported in 2026 INSC 370. Herein, alongwith
the status, wife is under ailment and treatment papers are also
produced on record and considering the continuous treatment,
learned Family Judge has considered the said aspect also while
awarding the maintenance. Meanwhile, alleged recession or close
down of the business in absence of any material is not enough to deny
the maintenance more particularly considering able bodied husband is
presumed to be capable of earning sufficient money to maintain his
wife and cannot contend that he is not in position to sufficiently
maintain his family and the onus is on the husband to establish that
the necessary material that there are sufficient grounds to show that
he is unable to maintain the family and discharge his legal obligation
for reason beyond his control. Herein, husband failed to disclose not
only actual income but any other circumstances as argued before this
Court. Hence, adverse inference may be drawn by the Court
considering the conduct of present applicant and as per the law laid
down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shamima Farooqui

                                 Page 13 of 15
   R/CR.RA/175/2022                                JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2026




vs. Shahid Khan reported in (2015) 5 SCC 705, wherein the Hon’ble
Supreme Court has held that merely reduction or decrease in income
is not a ground to deny or to absolve from the liability to pay the
maintenance. The obligation of the husband to provide the
maintenance stands on a higher pedestal than the wife. Therefore
also, the learned Family Judge has not committed any error which
calls for interference at the hands of this Court in exercise of
revisional jurisdiction.

[5.5] Further, it is needless to say that the revisional jurisdiction can
be exercised where there is a palpable error or non-compliance with
the provision of law and where decision is completely erroneous and
where the judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily. Herein, if we
examine the reasons assigned by the learned Family Judge, it appears
that learned Family Judge has already appreciated the facts and
finding of fact not to be upset unless it is found perverse and finding
of fact not to be substituted keeping in mind the ratio of Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of Amit Kapoor vs. Ramesh Chander &
Anr. reported in (2012)9 SCC 460 as no perversity is found in the
reasons assigned by the learned Family Judge. The learned Family
Judge has assigned well-founded reasons while awarding the
maintenance to the respondent – wife and such findings are based on
evidence led before it and hence also, no interference at the hands of
this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction is required.

[5.6] It would also be appropriate to refer to the decision of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Malkeet Singh Gill vs. State of
Chhatisgarh reported in (2022)8 SCC 204 wherein the Hon’ble
Supreme Court held that section 397/401 CrPC vests jurisdiction for
the purpose of satisfying itself or himself as to the correctness,



                                 Page 14 of 15
   R/CR.RA/175/2022                                                           JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2026




legality or propriety of any finding and as to the regularity of any
proceedings of such inferior court. The object of the provision is to set
right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction of law. There has to be
well-founded error which is to be determined on the merits of
individual case. It is also well settled that while considering the same,
the Revisional Court does not dwell at length upon the facts and
evidence of the case to reverse those findings. It is a settled legal
proposition that if the Court below recorded the finding of fact, the
question of re-appreciation of evidence by the revisional Court does
not arise unless it is found to be totally perverse.

[6.0] In wake of aforesaid conspectus, present criminal revision
application stands dismissed. Resultantly, the impugned order dated
10.12.2021 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court,
Anand in Criminal Misc. Application No.81 of 2019 is hereby
confirmed. Rule is hereby discharged. Interim relief stands vacated
forthwith.
        In view of dismissal of criminal revision application, interim
applications being CR.MA (For Stay) Nos.1/2022; 1/2023 (For Vacating
Interim Relief) and 1 of 2024 (For Interim Relief) in Criminal Revision
Application No.175/2022 also stand disposed of.


                                                                                        Sd/-
                                                                      (HASMUKH D. SUTHAR, J.)

Ajay
 Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
 Digitally signed by: AJAY CHANDRAN MENON(HC00939), PRINCIPAL PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 24/04/2026 12:32:17




                                                  Page 15 of 15