Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 70 - 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 104Nominal IndexBabubhai Ishwarbhai Patel v. State of Gujarat & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 70State of Gujarat v. Shabbirhusein Shekhadam Khandvawala & Ors 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 71Suleiman Ahmed Minty v. State of Gujarat & Ors 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 72Advance Greenfield Pvt Ltd Through Its Director Surendrakumar Netaram Sharma v. State...
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 70 - 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 104
Nominal Index
Babubhai Ishwarbhai Patel v. State of Gujarat & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 70
State of Gujarat v. Shabbirhusein Shekhadam Khandvawala & Ors 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 71
Suleiman Ahmed Minty v. State of Gujarat & Ors 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 72
Advance Greenfield Pvt Ltd Through Its Director Surendrakumar Netaram Sharma v. State of Gujarat & Anr. 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 73
Dharmendra Vallabhbhai Ramani v. Jetpur Swaminarayan Trust & Anr. 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 74
District Primary Education Officer & Anr. v. Sabihaben Ayubhbai Vora 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 75
Pirzada Saiyed Bahauddin B. Kadri (since deceased through heirs) and others v. State of Gujarat 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 76
Mukeshbhai Gorchandbhai Chamka v State of Gujarat 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 77
Koli Parshottambhai Narsinhbhai & Anr. v. State of Gujarat Through Secretary (Appeals) & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 78
Mayurbhai Badvantbhai Dave v. State of Gujarat & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 79
Kartikbhai Jashubhai Patel v. State of Gujarat 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 80
X v. Y 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 81
Rajeshbhai Maheshbhai Jani & Ors. v. State of Gujarat & Anr. 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 82
Rajesh Nathabhai Ahmeda & Ors. v/s State of Gujarat & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 83
Janaksinh Khushalsinh Parmar v/s Ministry of Culture, Govt of India & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 84
Palakben Ravi Luni & Anr. v/s None 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 85
Paschim Gujarat Vij Co Ltd v/s Hasam Mamad Sama & Anr. 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 86
Umeshwar Akshaywar Dubey v/s Shree Sainath Sarvajanik Seva Mandal Trust & Anr. 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 87
Parvez Yunusbhai Shaikh & Ors. v/s State of Gujarat & Anr. 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 88
Brahmane Manisha Sadanandbhai & Ors. v/s Union of India 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 89
X v/s State of Gujarat & Anr. 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 90
X v/s Y 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 91
Pradeepsinh Chandrasinh Solanki & Anr. v/s Board of Control for Cricket in India & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 92
Geetaben Sunilbhai Gamit & Ors. v/s Ashoksing Ramakantsing Chouhan (Dismissed) & Anr 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 93
Tillana Shripal Shah v/s State of Gujarat & Anr. 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 94
The Union of India & Ors v/s Chirag 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 95
Lalitkumar Jivrajbhai Vaghela v/s State of Gujarat & Anr. 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 96
Mansukhbhai Dhanjibhai Makwana v/s State of Gujarat & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 97
The Trustee, Ahmedabad Jesuits Schools Society & Anr. v/s Biju Jose Vadaken & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 98
Piyushbhai Bhagvatbhai Gamit v/s State of Gujarat & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 99
X v/s Y, 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 100
Hasmukhbhai Bhurabhai Vasava v/s State of Gujarat, 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 101
Manojbhai Kanjibhai Rupareliya v/s Paschim Gujarat Vij Company Limited & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 102
Pareshbhai Shankerbhai Taviyad v/s State of Gujarat, 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 103
Akshay Pitamber Savarkar & Anr. v/s Central Adoption Resource Authority & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 104
Judgments/ Orders
Case Title: Babubhai Ishwarbhai Patel v. State of Gujarat & Ors.
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 70
The Gujarat High Court has held that when rights in land are acquired through a registered document under the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, the revenue authorities are duty-bound to mutate the entry.
In doing so the court said that the refusal to restore such entry despite subsequent consent of parties and rectification of defects is “not legally sustainable.”
Justice Divyesh A. Joshi referred to Section 135(C) of Gujarat Land Revenue Code which states that when a person acquires a right on any land via succession, survivorship, inheritance, partition, purchase, mortgage, gift, lease etc., he shall make a report of acquisition of such right to the designated officer within three months from the date of such acquisition, and the said designated officer shall at once, give a written acknowledgment of the receipt.
Case Title: State of Gujarat v. Shabbirhusein Shekhadam Khandvawala & Ors
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 71
The Gujarat High Court acquitted a police officer convicted by trial court in 2003 in a custodial torture and illegal confinement FIR lodged in 1976, holding that the prosecution failed to establish that the complainant was tortured wherein the allegations were not supported by reliable medical or corroborative evidence.
Justice Gita Gopi observed:
“The prosecution had failed to prove the case of police custodial torture of the complainant. The injuries are not proved as of police custody beating. Even the date of custody is not proved. The complainant had failed to invoke his right to make complaint of injuries by police as an accused when [he] was arrested and produced before the Magistrate in [the] case under the Arms Act… The judgment [of the Trial Court], thus, becomes erroneous and fails in merits and is required to be set aside. Since there is no case for conviction, there would be no ground for the plea of enhancement of the sentence.”
Case Title: Suleiman Ahmed Minty v. State of Gujarat & Ors
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 72
The Gujarat High Court has held that revenue entries obtained by suppressing material facts and playing fraud cannot confer legal rights, reiterating that any order secured by fraud is a “nullity and non est in the eye of law.”
In doing so the court observed that challenge to a 29-year-old mutation entry would not be barred by limitation as limitation was applicable only from the date of knowledge of the fraud, and not from the date of the fraud itself.
Case Title: Advance Greenfield Pvt Ltd Through Its Director Surendrakumar Netaram Sharma v. State of Gujarat & Anr.
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 73
The Gujarat High Court has held that the Collector cannot reject an application for grant of land use certificate under Section 63AA of State Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act on technical deficiencies.
For context, Section 63AA of the Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 enables a person to buy agricultural land provided that it is to be used for bona-fide industrial purposes.
Allowing the petition, the Court quashed the Collector's order rejecting the petitioner's application reflected “overstepping of jurisdiction” and lacked application of mind; it also permitted the petitioner to file a fresh application for consideration in accordance with law.
Case Title: Dharmendra Vallabhbhai Ramani v. Jetpur Swaminarayan Trust & Anr.
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 74
Holding that tenants cannot invoke Section 11(3) of Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act for fixation of standard rent in respect of premises constructed after the 2001 amendment, the Gujarat High Court dismissed a batch of appeals filed by tenants of Jetpur Swaminarayan Trust.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice J.C. Doshi observed:
“… it becomes abundantly clear that when the appellants instituted an application under Section 11(3) of the Rent Act seeking fixation of standard rent, the very provisions of the Rent Act had ceased to apply to the premises in question. The statutory remedy invoked was, therefore, not available to the appellants in law. The institution of such proceedings, in the absence of a subsisting statutory foundation, amounts to a misconceived invocation of jurisdiction, resulting in an exercise in futility and an unwarranted consumption of judicial time, making it an abuse of process of law. Thus, from all counts makes standard rent application as irreparable suit, which discerned to be nipped at threshold.”
Case Title: District Primary Education Officer & Anr. v. Sabihaben Ayubhbai Vora
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 75
Holding that civil court cannot reassess interview marks or direct appointment to a public post, the Gujarat High Court quashed concurrent judgments of the Trial Court and First Appellate Court which had directed appointment of a primary school teacher nearly 11 years after the declaration of merit list.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice J.C. Doshi observed:
“If we peruse paragraph Nos. 12 to 17 of the Trial Court's judgment, it reveals that the learned Trial Court assumed the role and character of the Interview Committee and decided that interview committee committed serious error in not granting two more marks to the plaintiff. It is surprising that, in absence of any specific pleadings challenging the interview process, learned Trial Court undertook such exercise and granted two additional marks to the plaintiff on the ground that she possessed knowledge of special subjects. In fact it seems that learned Civil Court has assumed the character and dramatis personae of the interview committee. Unfortunately, said error which ought to have been rectified by the learned first appellate Court, failed to correct the same by allowing appeal, rather dismissed the Regular Civil Appeal and confirmed the judgment of learned Trial Court.”
Case Title: Pirzada Saiyed Bahauddin B. Kadri (since deceased through heirs) and others v. State of Gujarat
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 76
The Gujarat High Court has dismissed an appeal seeking the State government be restrained from interfering with a party's burial activities near a protected monument in Vadodara, holding that the party had failed to establish any customary or legal right over the site.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice J.C. Doshi observed that the plaintiff had neither proved his alleged status as a religious head nor established any customary right permitting burial activities within the protected monument area.
Case Title: Mukeshbhai Gorchandbhai Chamka v State of Gujarat
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 77
The Gujarat High Court has upheld the conviction and life sentence of a man found guilty of rape and murder of a minor girl in Dahod district in 2013, holding that the prosecution had established a complete chain of circumstantial evidence pointing to the accused's guilt.
A Division Bench of Justice Ilesh J. Vora and Justice R.T. Vachhani dismissed the appeal filed by Mukeshbhai Gorchandbhai Chamka challenging a 2014 judgment of the Sessions Court which had convicted him under Sections 376 (rape) and 302 (murder) of the Indian Penal Code.
Case Title: Koli Parshottambhai Narsinhbhai & Anr. v. State of Gujarat Through Secretary (Appeals) & Ors.
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 78
The Gujarat High Court quashed orders of revenue authorities vesting agricultural land in the State, holding that initiation of suo motu proceedings after an unexplained delay of 11 years was arbitrary and beyond the scope of the powers under the Bombay Land Revenue Code.
Justice Divyesh A. Joshi observed that the revenue authorities had exercised powers in a manner contrary to settled legal principles governing delayed exercise of revisional jurisdiction.
Quoting Supreme Court's ruling in Dehri Rohtas Light Railway Co. Ltd. v. District Board, Bhojpur (1992), the Court noted the law as under,
“… delayed exercise of revisional jurisdiction is frowned upon because if actions or transactions were to remain forever open to challenge, it will mean avoidable and endless uncertainty in human affairs, which is not the policy of law… even when there is no period of limitation prescribed for exercise of such powers, the intervening delay may have led to creation of third-party rights that cannot be trampled by a belated exercise of discretionary power, especially when no cogent explanation for the delay is in sight.”
Case Title: Mayurbhai Badvantbhai Dave v. State of Gujarat & Ors.
Case No.: R/Criminal Revision Application No. 181 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 79
The Gujarat High Court recently observed that while maintenance may be enhanced due to inflation and changed circumstances, the amount fixed must not be excessive in a manner that encourages idleness or becomes disproportionate to the husband's income and liabilities.
Justice P. M. Raval held that the Family Court had doubled the maintenance amount without providing adequate reasons or justification.
“It is true that considering the rate of inflation, the amount ought to have been enhanced, but merely considering the fact that now wife is not earning and that the inflation rate has gone up and that five years have elapsed after the earlier maintenance order, the trial Court has doubled the amount of maintenance, however, without giving any palpable reasons therefor and/or without giving any justification for coming to such a conclusion and doubling the amount of maintenance.”
Case Title: Kartikbhai Jashubhai Patel v. State of Gujarat
Case No.: R/Criminal Revision Application No. 2627 of 2025 (with connected matters)
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 80
The Gujarat High Court has held that although Section 250(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) prescribes a period of sixty days to file a discharge application after committal, the expiry of that period does not extinguish the accused's right to seek discharge where sufficient cause for delay is shown.
Section 250(1) of the BNSS allows an accused to file an application seeking discharge within 60 days from the date on which the case is committed to the Court of Session.
Justice P. M. Raval observed that limitation provisions regulate the procedure but do not eliminate the substantive defence available to an accused.
“Thus, by virtue of Section 250(1) an accused may prefer an application for discharge within a period of sixty days from the date of commitment of the case under section 232, if at all he desires to prefer such an application, but, in the considered opinion of the Court, it does not exclude the judicial discretion in appropriate cases or where delay is not attributable to the accused as in the present facts of the case. Thus, it can be held that 60 days period under Section 250(1) of the BNSS regulates the procedure and it does not extinguish the right to seek discharge. It also does not exclude the judicial discretion in appropriate cases where delay is not attributable to the accused while considering the condonation of delay as it reflects prima facie from the facts of the present case.”
Case Title: X v. Y
Case No.: R/First Appeal No. 2908 of 2019
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 81
The Gujarat High Court has upheld a Family Court decree dissolving a marriage on the ground of cruelty, holding that the Family Court was justified in relying on CCTV footage of an incident involving the husband's assault on the wife at a railway station, despite the lack of a Section 65B certificate.
Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act requires that any electronic record (computer output, video, email, etc.) presented as evidence be accompanied by a mandatory certificate identifying the electronic record, describing the manner of its production, specifying the device involved, and confirming that the conditions under Section 65B(2) are satisfied, duly signed by a person responsible for the operation or management of the relevant device, to be admissible.
Case Title: Rajeshbhai Maheshbhai Jani & Ors. v. State of Gujarat & Anr.
Case No.: R/Special Civil Application No. 9072 of 2020
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 82
The Gujarat High Court has directed the State Government to increase the duty allowance payable to Home Guards so that it matches the minimum pay received by police personnel, holding that the State cannot disregard binding directions issued by the Supreme Court on the issue.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Maulik J. Shelat held that the State's continued payment of a daily allowance of ₹450 to Home Guards was contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Grahak Rakshak, Home Guards Welfare Association v. State of Himachal Pradesh.
Case title: Rajesh Nathabhai Ahmeda & Ors. v/s State of Gujarat & Ors.
SCA No. 430 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 83
The Gujarat High Court on Tuesday refused to entertain a plea seeking direction to State authorities to decide a representation for allotment of land to hold social functions in a village in Gir Somnath district, orally remarking that there were was no government policy placed before it under which land could be allotted as a matter of right.
Case title: Janaksinh Khushalsinh Parmar v/s Ministry of Culture, Govt of India & Ors.
R/WRIT PETITION (PIL) NO. 67 of 2022
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 84
The Gujarat High Court dismissed a PIL seeking removal of alleged illegal construction claimed to be made within the protected area of Bawa Ali Shah's Mosque–a protected monument in Ahmedabad, after noting that the litigant had not disclosed details of a previous PIL dismissed for default as well as his criminal antecedents.
In doing so the court imposed cost of Rs. 10 Lakh on the litigant remarking that the present PIL was a "device to misuse and abuse" the court process wherein the petition was filed in complete desecration of the PIL norms and the rules of the court.
Case title: Palakben Ravi Luni & Anr. v/s None
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2494 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 85
The Gujarat High Court quashed a family court order which had while considering a mutual consent divorce case, rejected a US-based husband's request to participate in conciliation process through video conferencing, holding that the request was blindly rejected without considering the facts of the case.
In doing so the court said that the use of video conferencing ensures that judicial proceedings are conducted efficiently and without unnecessary delay, thereby facilitating the expeditious disposal of matters in appropriate circumstances. It said that compelling the husband–who is living in the USA–to travel from abroad solely to participate in the conciliation proceedings would be both "unfair and unreasonable".
Case title: Paschim Gujarat Vij Co Ltd v/s Hasam Mamad Sama & Anr.
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3505 of 2007
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 86
The Gujarat High Court dismissed an appeal by power company Paschim Gujarat Vij Co Ltd challenging trial court order granting compensation to the kin of a man who died on spot after coming in contact with a live wire while he was walking over a lake embankment.
In doing so the court held that the company cant claim negligence by the deceased specially when its own live wires were hanging loose and at a lower height that it came in contact with the deceased as he was walking past.
Case title: Umeshwar Akshaywar Dubey v/s Shree Sainath Sarvajanik Seva Mandal Trust & Anr.
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 2319 of 2017
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 87
The Gujarat High Court has recently held that a temple priest/pujari would not qualify as 'workman' under the definition of Industrial Disputes Act as a pujari in a Temple does not do manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work.
The court further held that a trust managing a temple cannot be considered as an Industry under the act merely because the devotees who gather at the temple for worship are provided ladus made in the temple.
Case title: Parvez Yunusbhai Shaikh & Ors. v/s State of Gujarat & Anr.
R/SCA/6579/2025
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 88
The Gujarat High Court on Monday (March 16) disposed of a petition challenging a notice issued by Navsari Municipal Corporation to a Dargah, stated to be 200-years-old, for its removal due to a road widening project.
The court disposed of the petition as the petitioners sought to withdraw the plea after informing that they had filed objections to the notice and wanted to pursue the matter before the municipal authority.
Case title: Brahmane Manisha Sadanandbhai & Ors. v/s Union of India
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3793 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 89
The Gujarat High Court has observed that if a person is in the waiting hall, clock room, reservation or booking office, or on a platform or any other place within the precincts of a railway station and receives injuries or suffers death, the Railways would be liable to pay compensation.
In doing so the court emphasized that Section 123(c) (untoward incident) is a beneficial provision and the provision cannot be read in isolation. The court thus granted relief to the kin of a deceased passenger, denied compensation by the Tribunal on the ground that the deceased fell off his berth inside the train after a sudden jolt.
Case title: X v/s State of Gujarat & Anr.
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2710 of 2024
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 90
The Gujarat High Court has directed the State Government to take appropriate steps to ensure that court orders on power of the Registrar to make changes to entries in the register of births and deaths are brought to the notice of the competent authorities.
This, after the court lamented that even though there were a "plethora of judgments" setting aside orders where the Competent Authority had refused to exercise the jurisdiction vested under the Births and Deaths Registrations Act, yet same "stereotyped orders" were being passed time and again refusing exercise of the power.
Case title: X v/s Y
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1900 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 91
The Gujarat High Court has reiterated that a family court is competent and empowered to consider application for dissolution of marriage based on divorce by mutual consent which is also known as Mubarat agreement executed between Muslim couple.
A division bench of Justice AY Kogje and Justice Nisha M Thakore referred to the high court's decision in Asif Daudbhai Karva & Anr. Versus None (2025) and noted that the court had in detail, considered the dissolution of Muslim marriage by agreement.
Referring to the 2025 decision, the bench said it is settled that Family Courts are vested with the jurisdiction to declare the marital status of parties, even in case of mutual consent divorce in the form of Mubarat executed under the Muslim Law without having a written agreement. It further noted that in the present case the wife had filed an affidavit before the bench which had ascertained her free will of having entered into the mutual consent divorce deed.
Case title: Pradeepsinh Chandrasinh Solanki & Anr. v/s Board of Control for Cricket in India & Ors.
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1670 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 92
The Gujarat High Court set aside the candidature of four persons from contesting elections to the Baroda Cricket Association (BCA) after noting that they had completed cumulative term of 9 years as Councillor or Office Bearer.
It said that for determining disqualification, the entire period served either as an “Office Bearer” or as a member of the Apex Council in the capacity of a “Councillor”, including service as an elected “Office Bearer” and/or as a member of any Committee or Governing Council, must be taken into account while computing the 9 year period.
It said that any other interpretation would permit individuals to continue in office beyond the permissible cumulative period of 9 years by circumventing the provisions of Rules 6 and 14 of BCA's Rules.
Case title: Geetaben Sunilbhai Gamit & Ors. v/s Ashoksing Ramakantsing Chouhan (Dismissed) & Anr
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2148 of 2015
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 93
The Gujarat High Court has said that merely because a motorcycle suffers damage at "higher scale" in an accident would not mean that the motorcyclist was travelling at a higher speed.
The court made the observation while hearing an appeal moved by the deceased's kin challenging an order which held there was 20% contributory negligence attributable to the deceased.
Case title: Tillana Shripal Shah v/s State of Gujarat & Anr
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (HABEAS CORPUS) NO. 17368 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 94
The Gujarat High Court directed a father to hand over custody of his child to the mother, after finding that he had brought the child to India unlawfully by removing him from his mother's custody granted to her by a Canadian court where the father had participated.
In doing so the court observed that forcing the child to stay away from the mother who is based in Canada would be traumatic.
The mother had moved the high court in a writ of habeas corpus seeking a direction to her estranged husband to produce their minor 5-year-old son and hand over his custody. She has also prayed that the father be directed to hand over the passport of the son to her and for handing over the custody of her minor son to her, since she is the legal custodian of their son as per the orders of the Ontario court of Justice, Canada.
Case title: The Union of India & Ors v/s Chirag
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16411 of 2023
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 95
The Gujarat High Court granted relief to a physically handicapped candidate denied appointment by Centre as a Postal Sorting Assistant on the ground that he had not passed 10+2 with compulsory English and had approached CAT for relief as a "fence sitter" only after similarly situated applicants had succeeded.
In doing so the court took "judicial notice" of the legislative policy that people with physical disabilities are to be encouraged as well as reservations are provided, and the post of Postal Sorting Assistant would be ideal to accommodate people with disabilities (PwDs).
Wife Earning Income Can't Be Sole Criteria To Deny Maintenance From Husband: Gujarat High Court
Case title: Lalitkumar Jivrajbhai Vaghela v/s State of Gujarat & Anr.
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (FOR MAINTENANCE) NO. 283 of 2021
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 96
The Gujarat High Court has recently said that merely because a woman is earning an income cannot be the sole criteria to reject her claim for maintenance from her husband.
Justice Hasmukh D Suthar in his order noted,
"Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and considering the contents of the application as well as the conclusions of the learned Family Court, it is evident that the wife is unable to maintain herself and has been neglected by her husband. Furthermore, it is important to note that the mere fact that the wife is earning is not a valid ground to reject her claim for maintenance. In this regard, this Court finds it appropriate to refer to the judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sunita Kachwaha and Ors. vs. Anil Kachwaha, reported in (2014) 16 SCC 715. In that case, the wife, who was living separately, sought maintenance from her husband. The husband objected on the ground that the wife had sufficient means to maintain herself, but this argument was rejected by the Hon'ble Apex Court. It was held that merely because the wife is earning and may be highly qualified cannot be a reason to deny her claim for maintenance...In view of the above, the Court is of the considered opinion that the wife's earning cannot be the sole criterion for denying her maintenance. The husband's objection to the wife's claim for maintenance is unsustainable".
Case title: Mansukhbhai Dhanjibhai Makwana v/s State of Gujarat & Ors.
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (AGAINST ORDER PASSED BY SUBORDINATE COURT) NO. 425 of 2020
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 97
The Gujarat High Court has upheld an order discharging a man accused of committing adultery with another's wife in view of Supreme Court's 2018 judgment where Section 497 IPC was struck down as unconstitutional.
Prior to being struck down as unconstitutional in Joseph Shine v Union of India (2018), Section 497 stated that whoever has sexual intercourse with a woman who is wife of another man, without the consent or connivance of that man and such sexual intercourse does not amount to rape, is guilty of the offence of adultery. Punishment for the offence was imprisonment which may extend to 5 years, or with fine, or with both. However the provision stated that the wife shall not be punished as an abettor.
Justice Hasmukh D Suthar in his order said that the constitutional validity of Section 497 IPC has been struck down by the Supreme Court as being unconstitutional and violative of Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
The high court said that in the present case before it, except for the allegation of adultery no other consequence or independent offence—such as abetment of suicide or any other criminal offence—has been alleged.
Case title: The Trustee, Ahmedabad Jesuits Schools Society & Anr. v/s Biju Jose Vadaken & Ors.
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 22226 of 2019 and connected petitions
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 98
The Gujarat High Court upheld a tribunal's order directing a minority school to issue a fresh show-cause notice to a teacher–dismissed for misconduct, before directing punishment, noting that the dismissal order was passed by a person who was not properly authorized by school management as per Gujarat Secondary Education Act.
Justice Maulik J Shelat in his order observed that the resolution wherein a person (Mr Raj who served dismissal order to teacher) was authorized by the school's governing body, suggested that though the body's meeting chaired by the President to discuss the final action to be taken against Teacher had a quorum, however the resolution was signed by only one person.
Case title: Piyushbhai Bhagvatbhai Gamit v/s State of Gujarat & Ors.
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7162 of 2022
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 99
The Gujarat High Court has upheld the dismissal of a police constable after conviction in corruption case, observing that disciplinary authority can decide on the delinquent's conduct and award punishment without affording an opportunity of hearing due to exclusionary affect of second proviso to Article 311(2)(a) of Constitution.
Justice Maulik J Shelat referred to Supreme Court's Constitution bench decision in Union of India & Anr. Vs. Tulsiram Patel (1985) and said:
"It is deduced from the aforementioned dictum that in a case where Government Servant has been convicted on a criminal charge, the Disciplinary Authority only requires to consider whether the conduct of delinquent leading to the conviction warrants the imposition of a penalty. For that purpose, it will have to pursue the judgment of the criminal Court concerned and consider the all facts and circumstances of the case. As held, this has to be done by the Disciplinary Authority ex parte and by itself. Once the Disciplinary Authority reaches to the conclusion that government servant's conduct was such as it requires his dismissal etc., same should be decided by him. It is clearly held that the aforesaid has to be done by the Disciplinary Authority without hearing the concerned government servant, due to reason of exclusionary effect of the second proviso to Article 311(2)(a) of the Constitution. Thus, in view of the aforesaid dictum, there cannot be any second view which can be taken at least by this Court, rather it requires to follow and apply the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Tulsiram Patel (supra) in appropriate case, such as present one".
Case title: X v/s Y
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15369 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 100
While considering a custody case the Gujarat High Court observed that in such matters family court must adopt sensitive and child-centric approach wherein proceedings are conducted in a manner which minimizes trauma and prioritizes child's welfare above the rights of the litigating parties.
The court was hearing a mother's plea challenging a family court's order which had directed her to remain present on every working Thursday in the court along with her 2-and-a-half-year old son between 11:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. so that the minor's paternal grandfather can have access to the child. Further the family court had restrained the woman's second husband from being present along with her.
Case title: Hasmukhbhai Bhurabhai Vasava v/s State of Gujarat
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 816 of 2001
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 101
The Gujarat High Court upheld a 2001 trial court order convicting a husband to culpable homicide not amounting to murder, who assaulted his wife after he found her in a compromising position with another man in the former's house, remarking that this could be considered as "grave and sudden provocation".
In doing so the court said that the case falls under Section 304-part II IPC as intention along with knowledge to the act and cause his wife's death cannot be attributed to the husband.
For context, Section 304-Part II pertains to culpable homicide not amounting to murder wherein a person can be imprisoned for term which may extend to 10 years or with fine, or with both, if the act is done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death, but without any intention to cause death, or to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death.
Justice Gita Gopi in her order noted that accused had raised a defence that act of beating his wife was under grave and sudden provocation, as he had seen his wife and her paramour in a compromising condition.
Electricity Connection Can't Be Denied For Want Of Co-Sharer's Consent: Gujarat High Court
Case title: Manojbhai Kanjibhai Rupareliya v/s Paschim Gujarat Vij Company Limited & Ors.
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15830 of 2022
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 102
The Gujarat High Court has held that the question of ownership or right of occupancy over a property has no nexus with the grant of an electricity connection to a consumer who is otherwise entitled.
It further said that a company cannot insist on consent of other co-sharers of a property to provide electricity connection to a consumer.
In the present case the petitioner had sought for an electricity connection for a land but the electricity company had sent a communication stating that a well situated on the land was jointly owned by another person and thus his consent was required to proceed further.
Gujarat High Court Upholds Husband's Conviction For Strangulating Wife, Staging Death As Suicide
Case title: Pareshbhai Shankerbhai Taviyad v/s State of Gujarat
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL (AGAINST CONVICTION) NO. 1358 of 2015
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 103
The Gujarat High Court recently upheld a trial court order convicting a husband for his wife's murder by strangulating her with a rope but staging it to look like suicide by hanging.
In doing so the court held that the prosecution had proved its burden establishing homicidal strangulation as the cause of death, adding that the accused's defence of wife committing suicide was only an afterthought.
A division bench of Justice Ilesh J Vora and Justice RT Vachchani in its order held:
"This Court is in complete agreement with the proposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the initial burden always lies on the prosecution to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and that Section 106 cannot be invoked to fill gaps in the prosecution case. However, in the present matter the prosecution has successfully discharged its initial burden by leading cogent medical, forensic and ocular evidence establishing homicidal strangulation and staging of suicide. The defence of suicide is an afterthought and is not supported by any evidence. The appellant's conduct of immediately lodging a false report and his evasive behaviour at the hospital are consistent only with guilt and the desire to screen himself from punishment. The learned sessions court has therefore rightly convicted the appellant under Section 302 IPC for intentional murder during the quarrel, with full knowledge that dori/string/rope strangulation was likely to cause death. The sessions Court acquitted on Section 182 IPC, holding the accidental death report was in self-defence without proved mens rea to mislead, which finding is not challenged by the State".
Case title: Akshay Pitamber Savarkar & Anr. v/s Central Adoption Resource Authority & Ors.
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15710 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 104
The Gujarat High Court recently paved way for the adoption and immigration process of twin children who had been adopted by their Australia-based uncle and his wife after the twins' mother had passed away.
The Petitioners were facing difficulty as the State of Victoria, where they reside, was not accepting applications to adopt a child from India that are completed under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (HAMA).
Justice Hemant M Prachchhak in his order noted that in the present case the, the twins were adopted prior to the actual execution of the deed but the deed was executed on 29.09.2022.
"...I am of the opinion that there can be no hurdle in the way of the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner. I direct respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to consider the case of the petitioner and issue the necessary certificates as required by the Australian authorities to fulfill and comply with the requirements. All the necessary documentary evidences were already furnished by the petitioner before respondent Nos. 1 and 2. However, in case any of difficulty, the petitioners may again supply the necessary documentary evidences within a period of one week from today and on receipt of the said application, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 shall consider the case of the petitioner herein having regard to the relevant provisions of the Regulations 2022 and in accordance with law bearing in mind the facts that the adoption took place on 29.09.2022 and the children were born on 22.02.2022".