Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 79 to 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 87Nominal IndexMayurbhai Badvantbhai Dave v. State of Gujarat & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 79Kartikbhai Jashubhai Patel v. State of Gujarat 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 80X v. Y 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 81Rajeshbhai Maheshbhai Jani & Ors. v. State of Gujarat & Anr. 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 82Rajesh Nathabhai Ahmeda & Ors. v/s State of Gujarat...
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 79 to 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 87
Nominal Index
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
Judgments/Orders
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.