R/SCR.A/10226/2025 ORDER DATED: 16/09/2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (FOR MAINTENANCE) NO. 10226 of 2025 ========================================================== IBRAHIM SELARBHAI JIKANI Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR. ========================================================== Appearance: MR HITESH N ACHARYA(2302) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR KRUTIK PARIKH, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR Date : 16/09/2025 ORAL ORDER [1.0] By way of present petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”), the petitioner has sought for the following relief: “This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to allow this petition and be pleased to quash and set aside the order dated 26.05.2025 in Criminal Revision Application No.5 of 2025 passed by Ld. Sessions Judge, Veraval, in the interest of justice;” [2.0] Heard learned advocate for the petitioner and learned APP for respondent No.1 – State of Gujarat. [3.0] At the outset, learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is not going to dispute the quantum of maintenance amount and even the petitioner has fully complied with the impugned order and paid the maintenance amount awarded by the learned Revisional Court. [4.0] The main grievance of the petitioner is that the authorities R/SCR.A/10226/2025 ORDER DATED: 16/09/2025 relied on behalf of the petitioner have not been considered by the learned Revisional Court and in the impugned order, not a whisper about the said authorities has been made by the learned Judge while deciding the revision application. Except this, no any grievance is raised by the learned advocate for the petitioner. [4.1] Present petition is Eled under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. So far as powers under Article 226 of the Constitution is concerned, the orders of trial Court are not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in view of decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Radhe Shyam vs. Chhabi Nath reported in (2015) 5 SCC 423. So far as power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is concerned, the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution are very much limited and the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Radhe Shyam (Supra), in paragraphs 18 and 23, has observed as under: “18. Thus, it has been clearly laid down by this Court that an Order of civil court could be challenged under Article 227 and not under Article 226. 23. Thus, we are of the view that judicial orders of civil courts are not amenable to a writ of certiorari under Article 226. We are also in agreement with the view of the referring Bench that a writ of mandamus does not lie against a private person not discharging any public duty. Scope of Article 227 is di4erent from Article 226.” Considering the aforesaid fact, the order of the learned trial Courts could be challenged under Article 227 but not under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Herein, the petitioner has sought the prayer to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 25.05.2025, which fall under the supervisory jurisdiction of Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Considering the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Radhe Shyam (Supra), the judicial orders R/SCR.A/10226/2025 ORDER DATED: 16/09/2025 of Courts are not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and jurisdiction under Article 227 is distinct from the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. At this stage it is apposite to refer to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Garment Craft vs. Prakash Chand Goel reported in (2020) 4 SCC 181, wherein in paragraph 77 it is held that High Court does not act as a Court of Erst appeal while exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 and to re-appreciate, re-weight evidence or fact except error apparent face on the record or perversity in Endings. [4.2] Now, so far as main grievance of the petitioner that authorities relied on have not been considered by the learned Revisional Court is concerned, it is pertinent to note that there is no straight jacket formula as regards in what manner judgment should be dictated. The Court has to consider the issue raised before it and the arguments canvassed by both the parties and give answer considering the relevancy of arguments so canvassed and the Court is not duty bound to consider each and every and multiple authorities cited on one point which has already been decided or settled principle without explaining the fact as to how the said authority is applicable to the facts of the case on hand. In this regard, reference is required to be made to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rashmi Metaliks Ltd. vs. Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority reported in (2013) 10 SCC 95, wherein in paragraphs 7, 10.5 and 8 has observed and held as under: “The Supreme Court, and even more so the High Court as well as the subordinate courts have to face lengthy arguments in each case because of the practice of citing innumerable decisions on a particular point of law. The correct approach is to predicate arguments on the decision which holds the 5eld. There is little or no advantage to be gained from the manner in which the Court has responded to the factual matrix as other Courts may R/SCR.A/10226/2025 ORDER DATED: 16/09/2025 legitimately place emphasis on seemingly similar facts to arrive at a di4erent conclusion. The manner in which a Bench appreciates the factual matrix before it can obviously be of value only if a subsequent case presents identical facts, which remains a rarity. But the ratio decidendi has to be adhered to. The counsel must therefore exhibit circumspection in the number of cases they cite. The sheer plethora of precedents makes it essential that this Court should abjure from discussing each and every decision which has dealt with a similar question of law. Failure to follow this discipline and regimen inexorably leads to prolixity in judgments which invariably is a consequence of lengthy arguments. The rule of precedence, which is an integral part of our jurisprudence, mandates that this exposition of law must be followed and applied even by coordinate or co-equal Benches and certainly by all smaller Benches and subordinate Courts. If a co-ordinate Bench considers the ratio decidendi of the previous Bench to be of doubtful e;cacy, it must comply with the discipline of requesting Hon’ble the Chief Justice to constitute a larger Bench. It is a legitimate exercise, perfectly permissible for Benches to advance the law provided this exercise does not lead to a conclusion which is irreconcilable with a binding precedent.” [4.3] Further, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Malkeet Singh Gill vs. State of Chattisgarh reported in (2022) 8 SCC 204 conjointly with the observations made hereinabove as regards there being no any perversity in the impugned order, no interference is required. [5.0] In wake of aforesaid discussion, no case is made to interfere with the impugned order in exercise of powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and hence, present petition stands dismissed. (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 16/09/2025 18:55:48