Gujarat High Court Declines Maintenance Hike Citing Limited Revisional Jurisdiction

The Gujarat High Court has reinforced the principle that revisional courts cannot act as appellate bodies to re-appreciate evidence for substituting maintenance amounts unless the lower court’s order is patently illegal or perverse. The Court emphasized that while adverse inferences can be drawn against a spouse who suppresses income, the final quantum must remain commensurate with demonstrably reliable evidence rather than speculative claims.

A Single Judge bench of Justice S.V. Pinto presided over the matter, hearing a revision application filed by a wife seeking to enhance a maintenance award of ₹10,000 per month to ₹80,000 per month. The applicant challenged the order passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Anand, under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Key Takeaways

Limited Revisional Scope

Revisional jurisdiction is supervisory, not appellate; courts will not undertake a fresh appreciation of evidence simply to arrive at a different conclusion on quantum.

Burden of Proof on Claimant

Allegations of a lavish lifestyle or high-value assets must be backed by cogent documentary evidence quantifying actual income to justify high maintenance claims.

Adverse Inference Limitations

While non-disclosure of income allows for an adverse inference against a respondent, such an inference must result in a just and reasonable figure, not a speculative or extravagant one.

Statutory Purpose of Maintenance

Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 serves as a social justice tool to prevent destitution, requiring a balance between the claimant's needs and the respondent's demonstrable paying capacity.

Court Observations and Directions

The Court noted that the Family Court had already found the husband had deserted the wife without sufficient cause. However, on the issue of quantum, it observed that despite suspicious financial features such as deposits higher than disclosed income and use of luxury vehicles registered in others' names the wife had failed to produce direct evidence like sale deeds or business receipts to prove a monthly income of ₹80,000.

The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "It is settled law that unless the quantum of maintenance fixed by the learned Family Court is shown to be perverse, based on no evidence, arrived at without application of mind, or so unreasonable as to shock the conscience of the Court, this Court would not be justified in interfering with such finding merely by undertaking a fresh reappreciation of the evidence."

The Court has following directions:

"The present Criminal Revision Application fails and is hereby rejected. The judgment and order dated 05.11.2022 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Anand, in Criminal Misc. Application No. 387 of 2019, is hereby confirmed. Rule is discharged. Interim relief, if any, stands vacated."

Ratio

The High Court held that under Section 397 and Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the revisional court’s power is confined to examining the correctness, legality, or propriety of an order. It cannot substitute its own estimate of income for that of the trial court unless the original finding is shown to be perverse or one that no reasonable court could have reached on the available material.

Background

The parties married in 2016. The applicant alleged that the respondent had concealed a previous marriage and subsequently subjected her to cruelty and desertion. She claimed the respondent was a successful builder and money-lender with substantial income, seeking ₹80,000 monthly. The Family Court awarded ₹10,000, noting the lack of precise proof of the husband's income despite his failure to file tax returns.

In the revision, the Court relied on State of Kerala v. Puttumana Illath Jathavedan Namboodiri and Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander ( "(2012) 9 SCC 460": 2012 CaseBase(SC) 833) to define the boundaries of its jurisdiction. It also referenced Rajnesh v. Neha ( "(2021) 2 SCC 324": 2020 CaseBase(SC) 717) regarding the balancing factors for determining maintenance. Ultimately, the Court found no jurisdictional error and dismissed the application, though it clarified the wife could seek future enhancement if financial circumstances changed.

Case Details:
Case No.: R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (FOR MAINTENANCE) NO. 113 of 2023
Neutral Citation: 2026:GUJHC:57206
Case Title: Afsana W/O Imranbhai Vhora And D/O Isubbhai Ahmedbhai Kureshi Versus State Of Gujarat & Anr.
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Ms. Shivangi M Rana, Advocate
For the Respondent(s): Ms. C.M. Shah, APP for Respondent No. 1

Source: 2026 CaseBase(GUJ) 21239