IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Jitendra Jain, J.
Mehul Jagdish Trivedi - Petitioner
Versus
Manisha Mehul Trivedi - Respondent
Insolvency Petition No. 01 of 2025
Decided On : 20-11-2025
JUDGMENT :
Jitendra Jain, J.
1. This petition is filed under Section 14 of the Presidency-Towns Insolvency Act, 1909 (Insolvency Act) by the petitioner seeking a declaration that the petitioner be declared as an insolvent under the provisions of the said Act and further seeks stay of the execution proceedings in respect of an order dated 17th May, 2021 passed by the Family Court, Mumbai, whereby the petitioner was directed to pay maintenance of Rs.25,000/- per month under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.).
Brief Facts :-
2. The petitioner-husband is a dance teacher staying in suburb of Mumbai and the respondent-wife is staying in South Mumbai.
3. On 28th January, 2014 petitioner-husband and respondent-wife tied marital knot. Within 2 months of marriage, there were differences resulting into dispute reaching the Family Court pursuant to proceedings filed by the respondent-wife.
4. On 17th May, 2021, the Family Court passed an order under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ordering the petitioner-husband to pay Rs.25,000/- p.m. towards maintenance to respondent-wife w.e.f. 15th June, 2015. The said order has been challenged by the petitioner-husband by filing separate proceedings namely, Criminal Revision Petition, before the High Court which is pending as of today. The Family Court has rejected the contention of the petitioner-husband that his earnings are Rs.15,000/- p.m. only.
5. In the above backdrop, the present petition is filed for the reliefs stated above.
6. The ground on the basis of which the petition has been filed is that the petitioner is earning Rs.12,000/- to Rs.15,000/- per month, whereas the arrears amount calculated to be paid as per the Family Court’s order is Rs.22,30,000/- and since he has no means to pay the said amount, he be declared as an insolvent.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his aforesaid plea, relied upon Section 14(1)(a) read with Section 9(1)(f) of the Insolvency Act and contended that since the debts are more than Rs.500/-, the petitioner be declared as an insolvent and also took support of Explanation to Section 10 of the said Act. The learned counsel for the petitioner also relied on the observation made in the order dated 15th July, 2025 in the present matter, which was passed at the behest of the objector for vacating the ad-interim order.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not made any further submissions or brought to the attention of the Court any judgments on the issue which is raised for consideration of the Court either in favour of the petitioner or against the petitioner.
Analysis and Conclusion :
9. The short point which requires adjudication in the present petition is whether the petitioner can be declared as an “insolvent” under the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act, 1909 since according to him he is unable to pay the amount ordered by the Family Court.
10. Relevant provisions of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act, 1909 are as under :-
Section 2 – Definitions–
(b) “debt” includes a judgment-debt, and “debtor” includes a judgment-debtor.
Section 9 – Acts of insolvency–
(1) A debtor commits an act of insolvency in each of the following cases, namely,--
(f) if he petitions to be adjudged an insolvent;
Section 10 – Power to adjudicate–
Subject to the conditions specified in this Act, if a debtor commits an act of insolvency, an insolvency petition may be presented either by a creditor or by the debtor, and the Court may on such petition make an order (hereinafter called an order of adjudication) adjudging him an insolvent.
Explanation– The presentation of a petition by the debtor shall be deemed an act of insolvency within the meaning of this section, and on such petition the Court may make an order of adjudication.
Section 11 – Restrictions on jurisdiction–
The Court shall not have jurisdiction to make an order of adjudication, unless––
(a) the debtor is at the time of the presentation of the insolvency petition, imprisoned in execution of
A maintenance order from a Family Court does not constitute a 'debt' under insolvency law, and merely filing for insolvency does not compel the court to declare a debtor as insolvent.
The burden of proving the contrary in insolvency proceedings is on the debtor, and the legal provisions create a presumption that the debtor has committed an act of insolvency if he fails to comply w....
scope of jurisdiction under Rule 33 of Order XLI C.P.C. is so wide enough to do complete justice to the parties and it can be even extended based on any subsequent events.
The Judgment Debtor's failure to comply with the Insolvency Notice and subsequent Notice of Motion led to the adjudication of insolvency under Section 9(2) of the Insolvency Act.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a valid debtor-creditor relationship and the need to prove the act of insolvency before adjudication under the Provincial In....
The making of an order of adjudication by the Insolvency Court is a prerequisite for any other Court to exercise power under Section 29 of the Insolvency Act.
The Appellant's suppression of material facts and false statement on oath, the requirement to discharge the debts of all creditors including the Respondent Bank in order to seek an order of annulment....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.