The Gujarat High Court has upheld a Family Court's decision rejecting a woman's claim for maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, holding that there was no reason to interfere with the factual findings recorded by the trial court. Justice S.V. Pinto observed that while maintenance laws are intended to prevent destitution, they also contain specific statutory exceptions that must be respected.
Background of the Case
The marriage between the applicant, Naynaben Bhupatbhai Rathod, and the respondent was solemnised on 8 June 2021. According to the record, the applicant left the matrimonial home on 14 August 2021, and two days later, on 16 August 2021, both parties executed a deed of divorce by mutual consent.
Subsequently, the applicant approached the Family Court at Bhavnagar seeking maintenance under Section 125 CrPC, alleging that she had been subjected to harassment and ill-treatment by her husband and his family. The husband disputed these allegations, contending that she had voluntarily left the matrimonial home and was not entitled to maintenance under the statutory provisions. The Family Court dismissed the maintenance application, prompting the present revision before the High Court.
Court's Observation
Justice S.V. Pinto noted that the High Court's powers in a criminal revision are limited and cannot be exercised as if hearing a fresh appeal. Unless the findings of the Family Court are shown to be perverse, unsupported by evidence, or legally flawed, the revisional court should not reassess the evidence.
Referring to Section 125(4) CrPC, the Court explained that maintenance may be denied if a wife is living separately without sufficient reason, is living separately by mutual consent, or falls within any other statutory exception provided under the law.
The bench observed,
"The findings recorded by the learned Family Court regarding the applicant's voluntary separation and absence of sufficient cause are based upon the evidence on record and attract the statutory restriction contemplated under Section 125(4) of the Code."
At the same time, the Court clarified that merely because allegations of cruelty are not proved, it does not automatically mean that a wife has left the matrimonial home without sufficient cause. Every case must be decided on its own facts and evidence. However, in the present matter, the Family Court had considered the entire record before reaching its conclusions.
Decision
After examining the record, the High Court found no patent illegality, perversity, or jurisdictional error in the Family Court's findings. It held that the revision petition essentially sought a fresh appreciation of evidence, which is outside the scope of revisional jurisdiction.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the Criminal Revision Application and confirmed the Family Court's order rejecting the applicant's claim for maintenance.
It also clarified that the observations in the judgment are confined to the present proceedings and will not affect any other independent proceedings between the parties.
Case Details
Case Title: Naynaben Bhupatbhai Rathod v. State of Gujarat & Anr.
Case Number: R/Criminal Revision Application (For Maintenance) No. 666 of 2023
Judge: Hon'ble Ms. Justice S.V. Pinto
Decision Date: 30 July 2026
