Pranaybhai Mukeshbhai Magia vs State Of Gujarat & Anr

Hasmukh D. Suthar, J

It is required to be noted that Mr. M.P. Shah, learned advocate who was earlier appearing for the applicant has place retirement pussis pursuant to the Office Note dated 22.04.2025. Pursuant thereto, the Registry was directed to issue notice to the applicant; however, the said notice, though issued at the address provided by the applicant, remained unserved. Thereafter, by order dated 09.03.2026, this Court directed the learned Principal Judge, Additional Family Court, Vadodara, to verify whether the applicant was regularly paying the maintenance amount. In compliance thereof, the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Vadodara submitted a report dated 01.04.2026. Upon perusal of the said report, it appears that the applicant deposited only Rs.10,000/- on 06.08.2025, Rs.10,000/- on 08.10.2025, and Rs.5,000/- on 25.11.2025 towards maintenance. Except for these payments, no other amount has been paid by the applicant towards maintenance.

Considering the aforesaid report, it appears that the applicant has neither regularly paid the maintenance amount nor cleared the arrears. Moreover, the applicant has remained absent before this Court. 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. 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 absence of the applicant.

By way of the present application, the applicant has requested this Court to quash and set aside the judgment and order dated 10.01.2013 passed by the learned Additional Family Court, Vadodara in Criminal Misc. Application No.580 of 2009.

It is the case of the applicant that The marriage between the applicant and respondent No. 2 was solemnized on 14.08.2008 at Vadodara according to Hindu rites and rituals. According to respondent No. 2, she was treated properly for about one month after the marriage, however thereafter she was subjected to mental and physical cruelty by the applicant and his family members on account of financial demands. She alleged that she was compelled to reside at Mumbai, but as she was not properly accommodated there, both parties returned to Vadodara. It was further alleged that she was eventually driven out from the matrimonial home on 16.09.2009 and was thereafter left without any means of livelihood. Consequently, respondent No. 2 filed Criminal Misc. Application No. 580 of 2009 under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. before the learned JMFC on 16.11.2009 seeking maintenance of Rs.15,000/- per month from the applicant. Subsequently, the matter was transferred to the Family Court, Vadodara and renumbered as Family Suit No. 2497 of 2010. The applicant contested the proceedings by denying all allegations and contended that respondent No. 2 was quarrelsome in nature, had deserted him and that he was earning only Rs.6,500/- per month as a driver in a private company. After both sides led oral and documentary evidence, the learned Family Court, Vadodara partly allowed the application vide order dated 11.01.2013 and awarded maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month to respondent No. 2 from the date of the application. Therefore, the present Revision Application.

Heard learned advocates for the respective parties.

Learned advocate for the applicant submitted that the learned Trial Court has completely overlooked the settled principles governing grant of maintenance as well as the oral and documentary evidence available on record. It was submitted that from the cross-examination of respondent No. 2, it has clearly emerged that the applicant had shifted his residence to different places as per her wishes and, therefore, respondent No. 2 had deserted the applicant without any sufficient cause. It was further submitted that the applicant had suffered a heart attack on 16.07.2009 and was admitted to Narhari Hospital, where he remained under treatment till 25.07.2009 and was advised bed rest, due to which he lost his private employment. Despite such circumstances, respondent No. 2 deserted him instead of providing support. It was further contended that the learned Trial Court failed to properly appreciate the medical evidence of physician Nisit Jitendrabhai Pandya, which established the applicant’s medical condition. Learned advocate further submitted that the Trial Court wrongly relied upon the unsubstantiated allegations of physical and mental cruelty made by respondent No. 2, though no independent witness was examined by her in support of such allegations. It was also argued that the Trial Court failed to properly consider the provisions of Section 125(4) of the Cr.P.C., despite the applicant having established that respondent No. 2 had refused to reside with him without sufficient reason. It was further submitted that the applicant is only 9th standard pass, that he was no longer the owner of the Indica car in question, and that after suffering a heart attack, he was unable to continue driving the vehicle and had already transferred it prior to the passing of the impugned order. It was therefore argued that the Trial Court wrongly presumed his monthly income to be Rs.15,000/- to Rs.16,000/-without any basis. Lastly, it was submitted that presently the applicant is working as a rickshaw driver and earning hardly Rs.5,000/- per month, whereas respondent No. 2 is educated and was working prior to the marriage and is therefore capable of maintaining herself. Therefore, it is submitted that the present applicant may be allowed.

Learned advocates appearing for the respondents opposed the application and submitted that the learned Family Court has rightly appreciated the oral as well as documentary evidence on record and has rightly awarded maintenance in favour of respondent No. 2. It was submitted that respondent No. 2 was subjected to physical and mental cruelty and was ultimately driven out from the matrimonial home, and therefore she was constrained to reside separately. It was further submitted that the petitioner has sufficient earning capacity and was earning through various sources including driving work, commission and other activities, whereas respondent No. 2 has no independent source of income to maintain herself. It was also contended that the petitioner has failed to prove that respondent No. 2 had deserted him without sufficient cause and, therefore, the provisions of Section 125(4) of the Cr.P.C. would not apply. Hence, it was urged that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court does not require any interference by this Court.

Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and considering the contents of the application as well as the conclusions of the learned court, it is evident that the wife is unable to maintain herself and has been neglected by her husband. Furthermore, it is important to note that the mere fact that the wife is earning or she is able to maintain herself is not a valid ground to reject her claim for maintenance. In this regard, this Court finds it appropriate to refer to the judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sunita Kachwaha and Ors. vs. Anil Kachwaha, reported in (2014) 16 SCC 715. In that case, the wife, who was living separately, sought maintenance from her husband. The husband objected on the ground that the wife had sufficient means to maintain herself, but this argument was rejected by the Hon’ble Apex Court. It was held that merely because the wife is earning and may be highly qualified cannot be a reason to deny her claim for maintenance. The relevant observation made in paragraph 9 of the judgment is reproduced as follows:

"Inability to maintain herself is the pre-condition for grant of maintenance to the wife. The wife must positively aver and prove that she is unable to maintain herself, in addition to the fact that her husband has sufficient means to maintain her and that he has neglected to maintain her. In her evidence, the appellant-wife has stated that only with the help of her retired parents and brothers, she is able to maintain herself and her daughters, while her husband's economic condition is quite good and the wife was entitled to maintenance."

In view of the above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the mere earning capacity of the wife cannot be the sole ground to deny maintenance. The objection raised by the husband against the claim of the wife for maintenance is therefore unsustainable. While considering an application under this provision at the instance of a destitute wife, helpless children or parents, the Court is dealing with the marginalized sections of society. The object of granting maintenance is to achieve social justice in furtherance of the constitutional vision embodied in the Preamble to the Constitution of India. In this regard, this Court deems it appropriate to refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Rajneesh vs. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324, wherein, in paragraph 49, it has been held as follows.

“49. Section 22 provides that the Magistrate may pass an order directing the respondent to pay compensation and damages for the injuries, including mental torture and emotional distress, caused by the acts of domestic violence perpetrated by the respondent. Section 23 provides that the Magistrate may grant an ex parte order, including an order under Section 20 for monetary relief. The Magistrate must be satisfied that the application filed by the aggrieved woman discloses that the respondent is committing, or has committed an act of domestic violence, or that there is a likelihood that the respondent may commit an act of domestic violence. In such a case, the Magistrate is empowered to pass an ex parte order on the basis of the affidavit of the aggrieved woman.”

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.

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 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.

Accordingly, the present revision application stands dismissed.