Back
2025 Supreme(Bom) 1623
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
B. P. COLABAWALLA, SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN, JJ.
Purvi Mukesh Gada - Appellant
Vs.
Mukesh Popatlal Gada - Respondent
Interim Application No. 16733 of 2023 With Interim Application No. 13095 of 2023 In Family Court Appeal No. 39 of 2023
Decided On : 10-11-2025
For the Appellant : Mrs. Purvi Gada
For the Respondent:Mr. Dushyant Purekar a/w. Mr. Rajat Dedhia, Advocates
The standard of living during marriage is a crucial basis for determining maintenance, and failure to disclose accurate financial details undermines a party's claims in court.
Headnote:(A) Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 - Interim maintenance - The court directed enhancement of interim maintenance to Rs. 3,50,000 per month for the wife, citing Mukesh's financial capability and the standard of living during the marriage. Mukesh's arguments on his alleged poverty were dismissed, noting he had multiple business interests and significant assets. (Paras 67, 69, 72)
(B) Financial Disclosure - A husband must come to court with clean hands; Mukesh's failure to fully disclose his financial circumstances and attempts to falsely portray his financial inability were noted critically by the court. (Paras 22, 41, 72)
Facts of the case:
Applicant Purvi Gada sought enhancement of interim maintenance after her husband Mukesh Gada, who received a divorce on grounds of cruelty, consistently defaulted on paying interim maintenance. Purvi argued the existing amount was inadequate for her and their daughter's living expenses. (Paras 2, 4)
Findings of Court:
The court emphasized the need to ensure that the maintenance amount would support the reasonable expenses of Purvi and their daughter, taking into account Mukesh’s actual financial means. (Paras 62, 72)
Issues: The primary issues addressed were the appropriate amount of interim maintenance in light of Mukesh's financial disclosure, the alleged low maintenance awarded, and whether Mukesh's pleas for reducing maintenance were justified. (Paras 10, 67)
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the standard of living during marriage dictates the maintenance to be paid post-divorce, stressing that income not reported for tax purposes does not equate to a lack of financial means. (Paras 18, 66)
Result: The maintenance amount was increased to Rs. 3,50,000 per month, with a total of Rs. 42,00,000 to be paid over 12 months. (Paras 70, 72)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. marriage duration and divorce proceedings (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. contentions on interim maintenance (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 3. court's observations on maintenance grant (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 4. assessment of lifestyle in marriage (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 5. credibility of financial claims (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25) |
| 6. assessment of wealth based on financial records (Para 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30) |
| 7. mukesh's role in family businesses (Para 31 , 32 , 33 , 34) |
| 8. contemporary evidence of mukesh's lifestyle (Para 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40) |
| 9. necessity of maintenance according to lifestyle (Para 41 , 42 , 43 , 44) |
| 10. purvi's response to mukesh's claims (Para 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50) |
| 11. challenges to purvi's expenses (Para 51 , 52 , 53 , 54) |
| 12. assessment of financial disclosure (Para 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60) |
| 13. determination of reasonable maintenance (Para 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65) |
| 14. legal grounds for maintenance statutes (Para 66 , 67) |
JUDGEMENT :
(Per, Somasekhar Sundaresan J.) :
1. At the threshold we must mention that this case was reserved on December 21, 2024. After the Christmas break, due to a change in roster, this Bench did not sit in the same combination. Further, the exigencies of work delayed pronouncing the judgement. Due to the aforesaid delay, and the efflux of time, the matter was kept for directions afresh on November 6, 2025. While the written submissions of the parties were comprehensive, the parties were asked if they wished to make further submissions considering the time gone by. The parties indicated that they have no further submissions to make, considering that they had filed detailed written submissions, and submitted that they have no objection to the judgement bring pronounced. Accordingly, we have proceeded to pronounce judgement today.
Context and Factual Background:
2. Purvi Gada (“Purvi”) and Mukesh Popatlal Gada (“Mukesh”) got married on November 16, 1997. Purvi, originally from Mumbai, moved to Pune to live with Mukesh and his family upon marriage. The marriage lasted 16 years, with the couple co-habiting in their matrimonial home. Since 2013, they have lived separately. Mukesh filed a petition for divorce in 2015, which was allowed by the Learned Family Court, Pune, granting him a divorce on February 24, 2023 (“Impugned Judgement”) on the ground of cruelty, with the permanent alimony fixed at Rs. 50,000 per month.
3. During the course of the divorce proceedings, payment of interim maintenance had been directed, also at Rs. 50,000 per month. It is amatter of record that Mukesh has regularly been in arrears on payment of the interim maintenance from time to time. Multiple applications have been filed in the journey of this litigation, where the frequent piling up of arrears is discernible.
4. Both parties are in appeal against the Impugned Judgement. The Impugned Judgement has been stayed.
Contentions of the Parties:
5. This judgement deals with two competing Interim Applications filed by the parties seeking interim relief pending hearing and final disposal of the cross appeals. Purvi has filed Interim Application No. 16733 of 2023 (“Purvi IA”) seeking enhancement of the interim maintenance to make it commensurate with her expenses, which also have to fend for her daughter. Mukesh has filed Interim Application No. 13095 of 2023 (“Mukesh IA”) seeking cancellation of the interim maintenance on the premise that he is not a man of means to pay Rs.50,000 per month and that he has paid more than enough already.
6. The Purvi IA pleads that Mukesh has historically been a chronic defaulter in payment of the interim maintenance awarded by the Learned Family Court. It is contended that Mukesh’s affidavits, meantto be filed in the form and substance as stipulated by the Supreme Court in Rajnesh vs. Neha1, are blatantly false. Yet, she would contend, without drawing any adverse inference, the Learned Family Court has given an unreasonably low maintenance, which too has been defaulte
