R/CR.RA/515/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/04/2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (FOR MAINTENANCE) NO. 515 of 2016 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR ========================================================== Approved for Reporting Yes No √ ========================================================== RUPABEN W/O PARESHKUMAR PANDYA & ANR. Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS. ========================================================== Appearance: HCLS COMMITTEE(4998) for the applicants(s) No. 1,2 MR PV PATADIYA(5924) for the applicants(s) No. 1,2 MR SANJAY PRAJAPATI(3227) for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3,4 MR ROHAN RAVAL, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR Date : 21/04/2026 JUDGMENT [1.0] By way of present revision application under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “CrPC”), the applicants have prayed for quashing and setting aside of the judgment and order dated 29.03.2014 rendered by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kapadvanj in Criminal Misc. Application No.148/2012 as well as the judgment and order dated 27.01.2016 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Kheda, District Nadiad in Criminal Appeal No.44/2014. [2.0] Heard learned advocate Mr. P.V. Patadiya for the applicants, learned APP for respondent No.1 – State of Gujarat and learned R/CR.RA/515/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/04/2026 advocate Mr. Sanjay Prajapati for the respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4. [3.0] Having heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, it appears that by way of present application, the applicants have challenged the order dated 29.03.2014 passed by the learned Magistrate in Criminal Misc. Application No.148/2012 昀椀led by the applicant under the provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 seeking protection order as well as for getting the maintenance. Having heard learned advocates for respective parties, the learned Magistrate has been pleased to pass an order on 29.03.2014 awarding total maintenance of Rs.1600/- per month i.e. Rs.1100 for applicant No.1 – wife and Rs.500/- for applicant No.2 – minor. Being aggrieved and dissatis昀椀ed with the quantum of maintenance, the applicants herein assailed the said order before the learned Sessions Court by way of 昀椀ling Criminal Appeal No.44/2014 and learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge modi昀椀ed the order of maintenance and enhanced the maintenance amount to Rs.2500/- per month i.e. Rs.1500 for applicant No.1 and Rs.1000/- for applicant No.2 – minor and ordered the respondent – husband to pay the same from 05.05.2014. Further aggrieved, the applicants have 昀椀led the present revision application assailing the judgment and orders passed by both the Courts below. [4.0] Perusing the record, it appears that another application being Criminal Misc. Application No.147/2012 was 昀椀led by the applicants under Section 125 of the CrPC seeking maintenance wherein order of maintenance came to be passed by the learned JMFC and said order was assailed by the applicants before the appellate Court by way of 昀椀ling Criminal Appeal No.19/2014 wherein the appellate Court con昀椀rmed the order passed by the learned Magistrate against which R/CR.RA/515/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/04/2026 Special Criminal Application No.5034/2014 came to be 昀椀led and the coordinate Bench vide order dated 11.08.2023 decided the said petition coming to the conclusion that in total applicants are entitled to get Rs.4100/- in total towards maintenance and admitted income of the husband on record is Rs.5000/- and therefore, the coordinate Bench did not interfere with the orders impugned therein however, liberty was reserved in favor of the applicants to 昀椀le appropriate proceedings under Section 127 of the CrPC in case of change in circumstances for enhancement of maintenance amount. [5.0] In aforesaid backdrop, when a speci昀椀c query is posed to the learned advocate for the applicants as to whether applicants have 昀椀led appropriate proceeding under Section 127 of the CrPC for enhancement of maintenance, he has candidly admitted that no any proceeding till date under Section 127 of the CrPC has been 昀椀led by the applicants. Thus, it appears that the applicant No.1 is able to maintain herself and her son and is satis昀椀ed with the amount of maintenance. [5.1] Even otherwise, 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 both the Courts below, it appears that facts are appropriately appreciated and 昀椀nding of fact are not to be upset unless it is found perverse and 昀椀nding 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 both the Courts below and hence also, no interference at the hands of this R/CR.RA/515/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/04/2026 Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction is required. [6.0] In wake of aforesaid conspectus, present revision application fails and stands dismissed. It goes without saying that it is always open for the applicants to 昀椀le appropriate proceedings under Section 127 of the CrPC for enhancement of the maintenance and once maintenance is awarded under Section 125 of the CrPC, double maintenance is not permissible and whatever amount is awarded under the provision of section 125 of the CrPC is required to be given set-o昀昀. Rule is hereby discharged. 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 21/04/2026 14:21:04