IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (FOR MAINTENANCE) NO. 978 of

2026 ================================================================ SHILPABEN W/O JIGARKUMAR RAMSHANKAR DAVE D/O NARAYANDAS NARMADASHANKAR JOSHI Versus JIGARKUMAR RAMSHANKAR DAVE ================================================================

Appearance:

MR DHARM K RAVAL(10689) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 ================================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI Date : 09/04/2026

ORDER

1. By way of this application, the applicant has made a prayer to quash and set aside the judgment and order dated 15.04.2025 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.68 of 2020 by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Palanpur, District Banaskantha and also to direct the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Palanpur to restore Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.68 of

2020 to its original file.

2. Learned advocate Mr. Dharm K. Raval submitted that the applicant had made ample efforts to get the process of the matter pending before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Palanpur, District Banaskantha to be served through Embassy of United Kingdom, but for one or the other reason the service could not be effected. The learned Family Court has referred to all the details with regard to the process through the U.K. Authority. It is further submitted that lastly a prayer was made for direct service through International Courier, which was ordered by the Court to be served through Blue Dart on 18.01.2025. Learned advocate Mr. Dharm K. Raval submitted that the learned Judge has observed that after four months too, the applicant has not returned to pursue the direct service and the Court had also expressed sympathy in favour of the applicant of her efforts to get the notice served which had lasted for about 5 years and considering it had directed the case and the matter to be being posted 63^rd time on the cause list. On that day, finding the absence of the applicant and the case being 5 years old, the matter was dismissed for default.

3. It is unfortunate that the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Palanpur, District Banaskantha inspite of appreciating the fact that the applicant has pursued for last five years to get the notice of the matter served through the Embassy as well as through International Courier and all her efforts which had remained in vain, merely finding that the matter has been pending for more than five years and thus, the Family Court finding it difficult to retain the docket of more than 5 years has dismissed for default the case, only on the absence of the applicant on that day.

4. Learned advocate Mr. Dharm K. Raval has referred to the order of this Court on 30.03.2026 made with a prayer for condoning the delay in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.17245 of 2025 and submitted that this Court had permitted the service of notice through the father of the respondent No.1 and the communication of the learned 2^nd Additional Sessions Judge, Palanpur referred to the Report of the Police Inspector, Palanpur Taluka Police Station and the notice was served through the father of the respondent No.1. The father had stated that his son for the last 22 years is residing in London and is not under his discipline and he has no contact details of the son nor the friends circle. It is further submitted that the statement of the father obviously becomes false on record because the father, mother and the son, i.e. the respondent members of the family had moved in the Family Court, Criminal Miscellaneous Application for quashing and setting aside FIR which is CR.MA No.5506/2021. The application was signed by Jigarkumar Ramshankar Dave as applicant No.1 in the quashing petition. Hence, the statement of the father that he does not have any contact with the son becomes wrong on record.

5. The learned Family Court was required to follow the provision of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973