Gujarat High Court
Ashokkumar Ghanshyambhai Acharya vs Naynaben Ashokkumar Acharya on 13 August, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/581/2014 ORDER DATED: 13/08/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (QUASHING) NO. 581 of 2014
With
CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2014
In R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 581 of 2014
With
CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING OF ORDER/STAY) NO.
1 of 2023
In R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 581 of 2014
==========================================================
ASHOKKUMAR GHANSHYAMBHAI ACHARYA
Versus
NAYNABEN ASHOKKUMAR ACHARYA & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR TEJAS P SATTA(3149) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR ABHIRAJ R TRIVEDI(5576) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR. CHINTAN DAVE ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s)
No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
Date : 13/08/2025
ORAL ORDER
Heard learned advocate Mr. Tejas P. Satta for the petitioner, learned advocate Mr. Abhiraj Trivedi for the respondent No.1 and learned APP Mr. Chintan Dave for the respondent State.
1. This petition is filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code challenges the order passed in Criminal Misc. Application No. 2865 of 2010 by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Vadodara whereby in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 127 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the learned Family Court enhanced the amount of maintenance Page 1 of 14 Uploaded by MARY VADAKKAN(HC00204) on Tue Aug 19 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 19 21:51:52 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/581/2014 ORDER DATED: 13/08/2025 undefined from Rs. 400/- to Rs. 8000/- to be paid from the date of the petition i.e 11.2.2010.
1.1 The brief facts of the case are as under :
1.2 The petitioner is residing at Vadgam, Tal Khamblist, District Anand. The respondent no.1 has filed one Criminal Misc. Application No.2865/2010 (Old No. 93/2010), under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code against the petitioner.
1.3. The petitioner states that the marriage between the petitioner and respondent no.1 has been solemnized before 15 years and they have one daughter namely Heena aged about 17 years out of their marriage life.
1.4 The petitioner states that as per the case of the respondent no.1, she was deserted by the petitioner but, in fact, it was not so. She herself left the company of the petitioner of her own and residing separately the J.M.F.C, Vadodara has ordered for the custody of the daughter "Heena" to the respondent No.1 without properly considering the facts with regard to the order of this Hon'ble High Court.Page 2 of 14 Uploaded by MARY VADAKKAN(HC00204) on Tue Aug 19 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 19 21:51:52 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/581/2014 ORDER DATED: 13/08/2025 undefined 1.5. The petitioner states that the Family Court did not consider the fact that there is no other source of income except the agricultural land with the petitioner and the said land is ancestral land of the petitioner and that to is of non-irrigated land. The petitioner, therefore, most of the period of the year, doing labour works in the agricultural land of others and from that, earning his livelihood which is at the most Rs.2500/- per month.
1.6 The petitioner states that the respondent no.1 did not produce a single evidence of income of the present petitioner and on the contrary, illegally has taken custody of the petitioner though the order is in favour of the petitioner. In spite of such fact only on the basis of assumption, the application under Section 127 allowed and the amount of maintenance was unreasonably increased to the extent of Rs.7600/-.
1.7 The petitioner states that the Family Court did not consider the fact that the petitioner is ready and willing to reside with the respondent no.1 and even, he is ready to keep the daughter of the petitioner with him for whom the respondent no.1 wrongly taken custody by suppressing material fact.
Page 3 of 14 Uploaded by MARY VADAKKAN(HC00204) on Tue Aug 19 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 19 21:51:52 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/581/2014 ORDER DATED: 13/08/2025 undefined 1.8 The petitioner states he had never denied maintaining respondent no. 1 at any point of time or neglected her or deserted her. But, she refused to live with the petitioner without sufficient cause which is clearly transpired from the documents produced on record and also from the depositions of the witnesses.
1.9 The petitioner states that the Hon'ble Family Court did not consider the aforementioned facts and even not properly appreciate the written arguments advanced before the Hon'ble Family Court by the applicant and without considering the same, passed the order of additional maintenance of 7,600/- against the applicant which is under challenge before this Hon'ble Court by way of the captioned Application.
1.10 The petitioner approached this Court for challenging the impugned order dated 06.08.2013 passed in Criminal Misc. (Maintenance) Application No.2865 of 2010 (Old Case No.93 of 2010) by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Vadodara, by which ordered the monthly maintenance for Rs.12,000/- against the applicant and also ordered for the cost of Rs.1000/-.
Page 4 of 14 Uploaded by MARY VADAKKAN(HC00204) on Tue Aug 19 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 19 21:51:52 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/581/2014 ORDER DATED: 13/08/2025 undefined
2. The learned Family Court after conducting the trial while enhancing the maintenance from Rs. 400 to Rs. 8000/- passed the following order. Relevant para 10 is read as under :
"(10) Upon examining the entire evidence that has come on record, as per the applicant's submission, the opponent owns agricultural land measuring 250 to 300 vighas at Vadgam. The main produce of this land is Bhaliya Wheat and the opponent earns more than ten to twelve lakh rupees annually. The applicant has adhered to this fact in cross-
examination also and has not stated any contradictory facts. However, the opponent submits is that his father owns 47 vighas of non-irrigated agricultural land, out of which, his brother cultivates 23 vighas, and he only takes monsoon crops from 23 vighas of land. He denies in cross-examination that 23 vighas of land have come to his share but he admits that he has mentioned in his affidavit that he cultivates 23 vighas of land. He admits in the cross-examination that he cultivates by himself. In cross-examination, he admits that his three brothers reside separately with their families, but they all cultivate the land together. The opponent in this matter has produced documentary evidence vide Exhibit-29. Upon perusing the extract of village form no. 8A produced therein, it appears that a total of 12 survey numbers in Vadgam village are on the names of seven persons including the opponent. All these lands are shown as cultivable. The Talati of Vadgam has issued a certificate stating that the agricultural land of the opponent and his two other brothers is non-irrigated, and the same has been produced vide Mark-29/2. In his written arguments, the opponent has stated that this land is an ancestral land with joint ownership and has seven coparceners and as the land that has come to his share is non- irrigated, the crop is grown if there is good rainfall, and for the remaining nine months, he has to work as a casual laborer. The opponent has produced the certificate from the Talati to show that his agricultural land is non-irrigated, but he has not produced a copy of the extract of form No.7/12. The extract of the 7/12 contains all the details such as which Page 5 of 14 Uploaded by MARY VADAKKAN(HC00204) on Tue Aug 19 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 19 21:51:52 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/581/2014 ORDER DATED: 13/08/2025 undefined crops are grown on the agricultural land, whether the land is irrigated or non-irrigated, and which crop will be grown the following year. However, the opponent has not produced a copy of the extract of the 7/12. Therefore, the court has reason to believe that the opponent has not produced the copy of the extract of the 7/12 to hide his real income. Therefore, from the facts that have come on record, it can be said that the opponent jointly owns lands in Vadgam village, and he cultivates it himself. The opponent gets the one-seventh share of the produce from the said land. The applicant submits that the opponent's annual income is ten to twelve lakh rupees, but it is not clear from the evidence on record that the opponent's income is as much as the applicant states. However, as discussed earlier, it can be assumed that the opponent cultivates the land jointly and that he gets a one-seventh share of the produce from the cultivation. The fact as to which crop the opponent grows on this land has not come on record because the opponent has not produced a copy of the extract of the 7/12. Therefore, as stated by the applicant, if it is assumed that mainly the Bhaliya wheat is grown on the said land, then the opponent's annual income can be considered as Rs. 2,50,000/- to 3,00,000/-, which means a monthly income of Rs. 20,000/- to 25,000/-. Thus, it is clear that the opponent's income has increased significantly after the order dated 15/10/2001 was passed in Cr.M.A. No. 832/2000. The applicant herself has admitted in her cross-examination that the father of the opponent has died, and the mother of the opponent resides with him, and the opponent takes care of his mother. Therefore, the fact has to be taken into consideration that in addition to the applicant, the opponent has the responsibility of maintaining his mother. At present, the applicant does not reside alone; her daughter also resides with her. This fact has been admitted by the opponent himself in his cross-examination, and the age of the daughter is 17 years. Thus, the fact has to be taken into consideration that the 17-year-old daughter of the applicant also resides with her at present. Thus, it is an undisputed fact that twelve years have passed since the order was passed on 15/10/2001 in Cr.M.A. No. 832/2000, there has been a great increase in inflation, the income of the opponent has also increased, and there has been an improvement in his status. At the time the above order was passed, the applicant was living alone, but now her 17-year-old daughter also resides with her. Thus, the Page 6 of 14 Uploaded by MARY VADAKKAN(HC00204) on Tue Aug 19 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 19 21:51:52 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/581/2014 ORDER DATED: 13/08/2025 undefined circumstances have changed substantially since the above order was passed. As discussed above, considering the fact that the opponent has to maintain his mother, after deciding that, the purpose of justice will be served, if the applicant, who is receiving a monthly maintenance of Rs. 400/- from the opponent as per the previous application, is given a monthly increase of Rs. 7,600/-, making the total monthly maintenance Rs. 8,000/-, and answering points no. 1 and 2 in the affirmative, the final order is passed as follows:
3. Learned advocate Mr. Tejas Satta assailing the impugned order submit that the petitioner did not get the sufficient opportunity to lead the evidence before the learned Trial Court. He would further submit that the learned Trial Court passed the order only on the assumption that the petitioner brought a big chunk of land and therefore, the petitioner is liable to pay Rs. 8000/- for maintenance to the respondent wife. He would further submit that the reasons assigned by the learned Trial Court is sought of legality and in that case he submitted that the matter may be remanded back to the learned Trial Court as unwarranted enhancement was made by the Trial Court in the amount of maintainance granted by the Trial Court under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Upon above submissions learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted to allow this petition and to remand back the matter afresh.
4. Learned advocate Mr.Abhiraj Trivedi for the respondent Page 7 of 14 Uploaded by MARY VADAKKAN(HC00204) on Tue Aug 19 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 19 21:51:52 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/581/2014 ORDER DATED: 13/08/2025 undefined submitted that the petitioner was given the full opportunity to show his source of income and to counter the allegations leveled by the private respondent but the petitioner did not enclose the opportunity. He would further submit that the Criminal Misc. Application No. 832 of 2000 was filed under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code by the respondent. On 15.10.2001, the respondent granted enhancement of Rs. 400/- by the learned JMFC. The enhancement was sought after 12 years of passing the order. The respondent was not only burdened to maintain herself but she was also to look after her daughter who was 17 year old child who was begotten out of wedlock. In that facts and circumstances, learned Trial Court has rightly passed the order and enhanced the amount of maintenance from Rs. 400 to 8000/-. Learned advocate Mr. Abhiraj Trivedi referred to the order passed by the Coordinate Bench dated 13.12.2024 would submit that even the order passed by the Coordinate Bench to deposit Rs. 3 lakhs towards whatever the outstanding amount is left as arrears has not been complied by the petitioner herein and thereby the petitioner has ignored the order of this Court which is not less than the contempt of Court. It shows sheer negligence on the part of the petitioner not to follow the order passed by this Court which was passed in presence of learned advocate appearing for petitioner. In Page 8 of 14 Uploaded by MARY VADAKKAN(HC00204) on Tue Aug 19 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 19 21:51:52 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/581/2014 ORDER DATED: 13/08/2025 undefined the aforesaid submission he would submit to dismiss the petition with cost.
4.1 Learned advocate Mr. Abhiraj Trivedi referred to the recent judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Rakhi Sadhukhan Vs. Raja Sadhukan 2025, INSC 789, particularly paras 6,7, 8, 9 and 10 and submitted that the Supreme Court believed that a sum of Rs. 50,000/- per month would be just, fair and reasonable amount of maintenance ensuring financial stability for the wife. He also submitted that the Supreme Court also deemed it fit to enhance the amount of maintenance by 5% every two years In the aforesaid argument he would submit to dismiss this petition with cost.
5. Learned APP in the facts and circumstances of the case, submitted to dismiss this petition and to award the cost in favour of the respondent No.1-wife.
6. Having heard learned advocates for both the side and perusing the record as well as the reason ascribed by the Family Court to enhance the amount of maintainance to Rs. 8000/-, according to this Court is a very feeble amount more particularly in view of the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in Rakhi Sadhukhan (supra) whereby the Supreme Court found that Rs. 50,000/- of the maintainance amount Page 9 of 14 Uploaded by MARY VADAKKAN(HC00204) on Tue Aug 19 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 19 21:51:52 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/581/2014 ORDER DATED: 13/08/2025 undefined would give financial stability to the respondent wife. The relevant paras read as under.
6. In response, the respondent-husband submits that his current net monthly income is Rs. 1,64,039/-, earned from his employment at the Institute of Hotel Management, Taratala, Kolkata. He has placed on record salary slips, bank statements, and income tax returns for the year 2023-2024. It is further stated that he was earlier employed with the Taj Hotel, drawing a gross annual salary of Rs. 21,92,525/-. He also submits that his monthly household expenses total Rs. 1,72,088/-, and that he has remarried, has a dependent family, and aged parents. The respondent- husband contends that their son, now 26 years of age, is no longer financially dependent.
7. Having considered the submissions and materials on record, we are of the view that the quantum of permanent alimony fixed by the High Court requires revision. The respondent-husband's income, financial disclosures, and past earnings establish that he is in a position to pay a higher amount. The appellant-wife, who has remained unmarried and is living independently, is entitled to a level of maintenance that is reflective of the standard of living she enjoyed during the marriage and which reasonably secures her future. Furthermore, the inflationary cost of living and her continued reliance on maintenance as the sole means of financial support necessitate a reassessment of the amount.
8. In our considered opinion, a sum of Rs. 50,000/- per month would be just, fair and reasonable to ensure financial stability for the appellant-wife. This amount shall be subject to an enhancement of 5% every two years. As regards the son, now aged 26, we are not inclined to direct any further mandatory financial support. However, it is open to the respondent-husband to voluntarily assist him with educational or other reasonable expenses. We clarify that the son's right to inheritance remains unaffected, and any claim to ancestral or other property may be pursued in accordance with law.
9. In view of the above, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order of Page 10 of 14 Uploaded by MARY VADAKKAN(HC00204) on Tue Aug 19 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 19 21:51:52 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/581/2014 ORDER DATED: 13/08/2025 undefined the High Court is modified to the extent that the permanent alimony payable to the appellant-wife shall be Rs. 50,000/- per month, subject to a 5% increase every two years, as noted above.
10. The contempt petition to be disposed of accordingly.
7. Apart from the aforesaid aspects it is noticeable that the vide order dated 13.12.2024 passed in presence of learned advocates for both the sides, the Coordinate Bench directed the petitioner to deposit the Rs. 3 lakhs towards whatever outstanding amount of arrears before learned Principal Family Judge within 15 days. The order passed by the Coordinate Bench on 13.12.2024 reads as under :
"Learned advocate Mr. Tejas Satta for the petitioners submitted that as per the order dated 1.11.2023 passed by this Court, an amount of Rs.3,24,000/- has been deposited on 8.11.2023 before the learned Family Court, Vadodara. It is further submitted that as per calculation of petitioner, total outstanding amount, as on today, comes to Rs.9,60,000/- and deducting the amount of Rs.3,24,000/-, an amount of Rs.6,36,000/- is yet to be paid towards maintenance. Upon instructions, it is submitted that petitioner is ready and willing to deposit 50% of the said amount. It is further submitted that petitioner is ready for the mediation to rest the dispute.
Per contra, learned advocate Mr. Abhiraj R. Trivedi for the respondent No.1-Naynaben Ashokkumar Acharya submitted that respondent No.1 is also ready and willing for mediation process provided that petitioner deposits 50% of the outstanding amount of maintenance which has been calculated by the petitioner. However, it is submitted that as per calculation of respondent No.1, outstanding maintenance amount was Rs.12,96,000/- as on 1.11.2023, and deducting the amount of Rs.3,24,000/- deposited by the petitioner, an amount of Rs.9,72,000/- payable by the petitioner towards maintenance.
Considering the submissions that both the parties are ready Page 11 of 14 Uploaded by MARY VADAKKAN(HC00204) on Tue Aug 19 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 19 21:51:52 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/581/2014 ORDER DATED: 13/08/2025 undefined to sit in mediation to conclude dispute finally, parties are directed to go before the Gujarat High Court Mediation Center.The Mediator shall mediate the dispute and submit the report within a period of one month.
In the meantime, petitioner herein is directed to deposit Rs.3,00,000/- towards whatever the outstanding amount of arrears before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court No.4, Vadodara within a period of 15 days."
8. Learned advocate Mr. Tejas Satta though argued on multiple aspects could not find out why the order has not been complied by the petitioner and what was the reason that the petitioner did not comply with the order which is not less than the contempt of the Court. The order passed in presence of both the sides has not purposefully complied with by the petitioner. This shows the adamant behavior of the petitioner and that he did not pay heed to the order passed by this Court. It appears that the petitioner thought that the proceeding before this Court is a joyride and he can overshadow the order passed by the learned Trial Court under Section 127 of the Criminal Procedure Code. It seems that the intention of the petitioner is not to grant the maintainance to the destitute wife and keep her in lurch so that she might run from pillar to post for getting the legitimate right of maintainance to herself and her daughter. It also appears that the petitioner is not taking care of his daughter.
Page 12 of 14 Uploaded by MARY VADAKKAN(HC00204) on Tue Aug 19 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 19 21:51:52 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/581/2014 ORDER DATED: 13/08/2025 undefined The daughter born out of the wedlock is living with the respondent-wife. This shows that the conduct of the petitioner and his lack of interest in taking care of his wife and daughter. This Court restrains itself from observing further but this is a fit case to impose a cost on the petitioner of Rs 50,000/- whereby he misused the process of the Court, for not complying the order of the Court and continued the proceeding without paying maintainance to the destitute wife.
9. For the reasons stated above, this petition is dismissed. Moreover, what could be observed that the order passed by the learned trial Court under Section 127 of the Criminal Procedure Code is reversible order under section 397 read with Section 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code for availing the efficacious remedy, the petitioner shall approach this Court under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
9.1 For the reasons stated above this petition is dismissed by imposing a cost of Rs. 50,000/- upon the petitioner and to be paid to Naynaben Ashokkumar Acharya- respondent-wife within four weeks from today failing which the amount of cost is also recoverable as maintenance under Section 125(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Page 13 of 14 Uploaded by MARY VADAKKAN(HC00204) on Tue Aug 19 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 19 21:51:52 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/581/2014 ORDER DATED: 13/08/2025 undefined 9.2 The respondent-wife shall be entitled to prefer another application under Section 127 of the CRPC in enhancement for compensation.
10. In view of above, Criminal Misc. Application 1 of 2014 does not survive and is disposed of accordingly.
(J. C. DOSHI,J) MARY VADAKKAN Page 14 of 14 Uploaded by MARY VADAKKAN(HC00204) on Tue Aug 19 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 19 21:51:52 IST 2025