Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 88 to 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 97Nominal IndexParvez Yunusbhai Shaikh & Ors. v/s State of Gujarat & Anr. 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 88Brahmane Manisha Sadanandbhai & Ors. v/s Union of India 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 89X v/s State of Gujarat & Anr. 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 90X v/s Y 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 91Pradeepsinh Chandrasinh Solanki & Anr. v/s Board of Control for...
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 88 to 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 97
Nominal Index
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
Judgments/Orders
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.