The High Court of Gujarat has dismissed a criminal revision application filed by a husband challenging a maintenance order, emphasizing that an “able-bodied” husband is legally and ethically bound to support his wife, particularly when she is suffering from a serious ailment like cancer. The Court upheld the Family Court’s direction to pay ₹50,000 per month, observing that a reduction in income or the closure of a business does not absolve a husband of his sacrosanct duty under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
Background of the Case
The marriage between the applicant (husband) and respondent No. 2 (wife) was solemnized in June 1995. The wife filed for maintenance under Section 125 CrPC in March 2019, alleging mental and physical harassment and a lack of regular financial support for day-to-day expenses. She contended that despite the husband being a successful distributor for Canon and owning multiple properties, he neglected her. During the pendency of the proceedings, the wife was diagnosed with cancer, necessitating significant medical expenses.
The Family Court, Anand, by an order dated December 10, 2021, directed the husband to pay ₹50,000 per month from the date of the application. The husband moved the High Court in revision, arguing that the amount was “exorbitant” and that his business had suffered significantly post-COVID-19.
Arguments of the Parties
The applicant-husband, represented by Advocate Ashish M. Dagli, contended that the Family Court’s order was based on “assumptions and presumptions.” He argued that the wife was residing with him at the time of filing the application and that he was already bearing the educational expenses of their son, who is studying abroad. He further submitted that his income tax returns showed an annual income of only around ₹2.12 lakh to ₹2.23 lakh and that his distributorship had been wound up.
On the other hand, Advocate Darshit Brahmbhatt, appearing for the wife, highlighted the husband’s “recalcitrant attitude.” He submitted that the husband led a luxurious life, frequently traveling to Dubai, Japan, Australia, and Bangkok. He argued that the husband was a proprietor of Rutumn Enterprise with a turnover running into crores and had intentionally suppressed his income tax documents (specifically Profit & Loss accounts) to avoid liability. He also pointed out that the husband had received medical insurance claims for the wife’s treatment but had failed to pass those funds on to her.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
Justice Hasmukh D. Suthar, presiding over the case, observed that the relationship and the wife’s ailment were undisputed. The Court noted that the husband failed to produce evidence proving his business was closed or that his earning potential had vanished.
Regarding the husband’s reliance on Income Tax Returns (ITRs) to show low income, the Court cited the Supreme Court’s decision in Kiran Tomar vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, noting:
“income tax returns do not necessarily furnish an accurate guide of real income… more particularly when the parties are engaged in a matrimonial conflict and there is a tendency to underestimate the income to avoid the liability.”
The Court applied the “able-bodied” principle, referencing Anju Garg vs. Deepak Kumar Garg, stating:
“it is the sacrosanct duty of the husband to provide financial support to the wife… the husband was required to earn money even by physical labour, if he is able-bodied, and could not avoid his obligation.”
The Court also addressed the wife’s educational qualifications (B.Sc. in Home Science and Fashion Designing), ruling that being “capable of earning” is not a ground to deny maintenance. Referring to Chaturbhuj vs. Sita Bai, the Court noted that the test is whether the wife can maintain the standard of living she was accustomed to in her matrimonial home.
Justice Suthar remarked on the husband’s conduct, noting that he opted to go behind bars in connection with other proceedings rather than paying maintenance, and emphasized that the award of ₹50,000 was “just and proper” considering the “spiralling inflation rates and high costs of living,” as well as the wife’s “ailment of cancer.”
Decision
Finding no perversity or patent defect in the Family Court’s judgment, the High Court exercised its revisional jurisdiction to confirm the order.
“The learned Family Judge has assigned well-founded reasons while awarding the maintenance… and such findings are based on evidence led before it… no interference at the hands of this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction is required.”
The High Court dismissed the revision application and vacated all interim stays, directing the husband to comply with the maintenance order.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Vasantbhai Premjibhai Vekariya vs. State of Gujarat & Anr.
- Case No.: R/Criminal Revision Application No. 175 of 2022
- Bench: Justice Hasmukh D. Suthar
- Date: April 24, 2026
