SOHINIBEN VINODCHANDRA SHRIVASTAVAversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

     R/CR.RA/49/2012                                  JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2026




             IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (FOR MAINTENANCE) NO. 49 of
                           2012


FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
==========================================================

            Approved for Reporting                   Yes          No
                                                                 ✔
==========================================================
                   SOHINIBEN VINODCHANDRA SHRIVASTAVA
                                   Versus
                          STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
HCLS COMMITTEE(4998) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS JK HINGORANI(2491) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR MEHUL S SHAH(772) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR ROHAN RAVAL, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR

                                Date : 22/04/2026
                                  JUDGMENT


1.      The present Criminal Revision Application under Sections
397 read with 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, has
been preferred by the applicant seeking enhancement of the
maintenance amount of Rs. 2,500/- per month awarded by the
learned       Family    Court     No.     1,      Ahmedabad       in    Criminal
Miscellaneous Application No. 1076 of 2009, vide judgment and
order dated 23.12.2011, from the date of the application.


2.      The case of the applicant is that the marriage between the
applicant and the opponent was solemnized about twenty years
prior to the filing of the proceedings in accordance with Hindu


                                    Page 1 of 6
     R/CR.RA/49/2012                                    JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2026




rites and customs, and out of the wedlock, two children were
born who are residing with the applicant. According to the
applicant, after a short period of marriage, she was subjected to
cruelty and physical abuse by the opponent and his mother and
was ultimately driven out of the matrimonial home, and since
then, she has been deserted without any maintenance. The
applicant is residing in a rented house, suffering from ailments,
and earning a limited income from a trust, whereas the opponent
is stated to be financially sound, running “Laxmi Provision
Store” and other businesses. The applicant had earlier initiated
proceedings under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure before the Family Court No. 1, Ahmedabad by filing
Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 1076 of 2009 seeking
maintenance of Rs. 8,000/- per month; however, vide judgment
and order dated 23.12.2011, the Family Court partly allowed the
application and awarded Rs. 2,500/- per month from the date of
the application. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said
order,      the        applicant   has     preferred   the   present       revision
application. The opponent has contested the proceedings by
denying the allegations and contending that the applicant had
voluntarily left the matrimonial home and that he has limited
income and other responsibilities, and both parties have led oral
as well as documentary evidence in support of their respective
cases.


3.      Learned advocate for the applicant has submitted that the
applicant–wife was earlier engaged in a part-time job with a trust
and was earning only about Rs. 4,000/- per month; however,
she has now left the said employment and has no independent
source of income, nor is she receiving any pension or other


                                         Page 2 of 6
     R/CR.RA/49/2012                                        JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2026




monetary benefits. It is further submitted that the respondent
was earlier paying Rs. 1,500/- towards maintenance for the son,
but since the son has now attained majority, the said liability
has ceased and the respondent has no other dependents to
maintain. In such circumstances, considering the rising cost of
living and the financial difficulties faced by the applicant, the
amount of Rs. 2,500/- awarded by the learned Family Court is
grossly inadequate and insufficient for her sustenance. It is,
therefore, urged that the maintenance amount be suitably
enhanced, having regard to the facts of the case and the
financial capacity of the respondent. Therefore, the present
application may be allowed.


4.      Learned          advocate     for   the      respondent–husband              has
vehemently opposed the present application and submitted that
the learned Family Court has rightly appreciated the evidence on
record      and         has   not    committed       any     error     in    awarding
maintenance of Rs. 2,500/- per month. It is contended that the
applicant–wife is earning and was receiving an income of about
Rs. 4,000/- per month, and therefore, she is not entitled to any
enhancement as claimed. It is further submitted that the
amount awarded by the Family Court is just, proper and in
accordance             with   law,   considering      the      overall      facts    and
circumstances of the case. Hence, it is urged that no interference
is called for in the impugned judgment and order, and the
present revision application deserves to be dismissed.


5.      Having heard the learned advocates for the respective
parties and upon perusal of the record, it appears that the
learned Family Judge has awarded maintenance of Rs. 2,500/-

                                       Page 3 of 6
     R/CR.RA/49/2012                               JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2026




per month to the applicant–wife from 07.05.2009. The present
Revision Application has been filed seeking enhancement of the
said amount. The relationship between the parties as husband
and wife, as well as the entitlement of the applicant to receive
maintenance, is not in dispute.


6.      It   further   appears   that,    though    the     applicant       has
contended that the respondent is earning about Rs. 40,000/- per
month, the learned Family Judge, upon appreciation of the
evidence on record, has assessed the income of the respondent
at Rs. 15,000/- per month in the absence of cogent documentary
evidence, considering that         the respondent is            engaged         in
independent business. The learned Family Judge also took into
account that the applicant was earning about Rs. 4,500/- per
month from a charitable trust and, on that basis, awarded
maintenance of Rs. 2,500/- per month. However, the said
amount appears to be unjust and inadequate in view of the
principles laid down in the judgment of Chaturbhuj v. Sitabai,
2008 (2) GLR 1159, and Sunita Kachwaha & Ors. v. Anil
Kachwaha, (2014) 16 SCC 715, wherein it has been held that
merely because the wife is earning cannot be a ground to deny or
restrict reasonable maintenance. It is also pertinent to note that
the respondent is no longer required to maintain the son, as he
has attained majority, and no other liabilities have been brought
on record. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the
case, including the rise in the cost of living, this Court is of the
opinion that the amount of Rs. 2,500/- per month is inadequate.


7.      From the various judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court,


                                 Page 4 of 6
     R/CR.RA/49/2012                          JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2026




it is well settled that a husband cannot evade his liability to
maintain his wife and children, as it is both a legal and moral
obligation. The law is clear that the husband is bound to
maintain his wife and minor children, and if he neglects or fails
to pay maintenance as awarded by the Court, he cannot be said
to be entitled to equitable relief in matrimonial proceedings. In
this regard, reference may be made to the decision of this Court
in Miteshbhai Dinkarbhai Makvana vs. State of Gujarat,
reported in 2025(0) AIJEL-HC 250224. Further, in 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 has been held that it
is the sacrosanct duty of the husband to provide financial
support to his wife and minor children, and that an able-bodied
husband is expected to earn his livelihood even by physical
labour and cannot avoid his obligation except on legally
permissible grounds.


8.      In view of the above, this Court is of the considered opinion
that the duty of the husband to maintain his wife stands on a
higher pedestal. The learned Family Judge has, therefore,
committed an error in awarding inadequate maintenance in light
of the husband’s income, warranting interference by this Court
in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. Further, in Rajnesh vs.
Neha & Ors., reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court, relying upon its earlier decision in Reema
Salkan vs. Sumer Singh Salkan, reported in (2019) 12 SCC
303, has observed that the Court must have due regard to the
standard of living of the husband, as well as the spiralling
inflation rates and high cost of living. The plea of the husband


                                Page 5 of 6
      R/CR.RA/49/2012                                               JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2026




that he has no source of income does not ipso facto absolve him
of his moral duty to maintain his wife, particularly if he is an
able-bodied             person          possessing             sufficient           educational
qualifications.

9.       In view of the above, the present Criminal Revision
Application stands partly allowed. Accordingly, the maintenance
amount is enhanced from Rs. 2,500/- to Rs. 4,000/- per month,
payable from the date of the application, i.e., 07.05.2009. The
judgment and order dated 23.12.2011 passed by the learned
Family Court No. 1, Ahmedabad in Criminal Miscellaneous
Application No. 1076 of 2009 stands modified to the aforesaid
extent. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.



                                                                  (HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J)
ALI



 Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
 Digitally signed by: ISTAYAK ALI(HC01093), PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 22/04/2026 16:35:23




                                             Page 6 of 6