BOMBAY HIGH COURT
M.S. Jawalkar and M.W. Chandwani, JJ.
Sahil Sanjay Rathod – Appellant
versus
Swati Sahil Rathod – Respondent
Family Court Appeal No. 57 of 2024 with
Family Court Appeal No. 58 of 2024 and
Criminal Revision Application (Revn)
No. 194 of 2024
Decided on 9.1.2026
Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 – Section 18 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 125 – Maintenance – Direction to pay maintenance of Rs.20,000/- per month to wife – Wife herself left her matrimonial house to pursue her post-graduation in engineering – However, there is nothing on record, so also in pleading that she has made any attempt till filing of FIR to return back to her matrimonial house – There was no just cause not to return to matrimonial house after her examination was over – Till filing of criminal complaint, there were no efforts made by wife on record, nor there are any pleadings about said attempts to resume cohabitation with her husband – It is also not established that grandmother of husband, in any way, influenced or insisted to husband not to resume cohabitation with wife – Grant of maintenance to the extent of Rs. 20,000/- per month is on the basis of insufficient evidence – Common judgment and order passed by Judge, Family Court, hereby quashed and set aside and matters remitted back to Judge, Family Court, to decide the same afresh. (Paras 30, 32 and 33)
Result: Family Court Appeals and Criminal Revision Application partly allowed.
JUDGMENT
M.S. Jawalkar, J.—Admit. Heard finally by consent of learned Counsel for the Appellant and the Respondent in person.
2. By all these matters, the Appellant-Husband is challenging the common judgment and order dated 30/08/2024 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Yavatmal in Petition No. A-126/2022 (for restitution of conjugal rights), Petition No. C-4/2022 (for maintenance under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956) and Petition No. E-74/2022 (for maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973) filed by the Respondent-Wife by which all the Petitions were allowed, the Respondent-Wife was directed to resume cohabitation with the Appellant - Husband and the Appellant-Husband was directed to pay maintenance of Rs. 20,000/- per month to the wife in each Petition for maintenance.
3. Since Family Court Appeal No. 57/2024 is treated as main matter, the facts and contentions stated in the said Appeal are set out for adjudication of the issues involved in all the matters and they are being decided by this common judgment.
4. The facts giving rise for filing of the present matters are as under:-
5. The Appellant is the husband of the Respondent. Their marriage was solemnized on 24/05/2021 as per the Hindu Rites and Customs in Yavatmal. For sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as, “husband” and “wife”. It is the contention of the husband that after residing peacefully at the matrimonial house for a very brief period, the wife started harassing the husband and his family members. On 30/09/2022, the wife filed a Petition for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before the learned Judge, Family Court, Yavatmal bearing Petition No. A-126/2022. On 23/01/2023, the husband refuted all the allegations made in the Petition by filing a comprehensive reply-cum-written statement. Two weeks prior to the institution of the aforesaid Petition, the wife had lodged an FIR bearing Crime No. 187/2022 at the local Police Station for the offence punishable under Section 498-A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The husband preferred Criminal Application (APL) No. 1436/2022 for quashing of the said FIR in which, this Hon’ble Court, by the order dated 20/10/2022, issued notices to the Respondents and granted interim relief by directing not to file final report against the husband.
6. It is the contention of the husband that the wife had attempted to harass him by instituting multiple proceedings claiming multiple reliefs against him and his family members. Apart from the DV proceedings, the wife had also preferred a Petition bearing No. C-4/2022 for grant of maintenance under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, which was in addition to the Petition filed for grant of maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Since the wife had broadly made common allegations against the husband in all the proceedings, by the order dated 09/02/2023, the learned Judge, Family Court directed that the Petitions for maintenance be tagged along with the Petition for restitution of conjugal rights.
7. It is further contended that the wife had suppressed that she was running a private teaching institute, which generated substantial income, which is evident from a matrimonial register published in the year 2020, which was placed on record before the learned Judge, Family Court. She had further suppressed that she was suffering from physical disability, which is evident from the response filed under the Right to Information Act, 2005 along with the disability certificate. On 30/08/2024, the learned Judge, Family Court, Amravati allowed all the Petitions filed by the wife. The said order dated 30/08/2024 is the subject matter of challenge in the present matters.
8. Learned Counsel for the Appellant - Husband submitted that the learned Judge, Family Court has failed to appreciate that the wife had concealed h
Anil Yashwant Karande vs. Mangal Anil Karande
Lawrence Philimone Daniel vs. Pranali Lawrence Daniel
K. Shrinivas Rao vs. D.A. Deepa
Maintenance – Quantum of maintenance must be based on proper evidence.
A wife who voluntarily separates from her husband without sufficient cause is not entitled to maintenance under Section 125(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Award of maintenance – Wife is not entitled for maintenance where she has been refusing to reside with her husband without any reason.
Point of Law : It is settled that maintenance laws have been enacted as a measure of social justice to provide recourse to dependent wife and children for their financial support; so as to prevent th....
Maintenance – Ready to take care of child - Merely because the Revision Petitioner is the father of the child and is ready to take care of his child, would not permit him to discontinue the maintenan....
The main legal point established is that under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a spouse who is capable of maintaining themselves may be denied maintenance allowance, but the responsibi....
Point of Law : The principles of Hindu Personal Law have developed in an evolutionary way out of concern for all those subject to it so as to make fair provision against destitution. The manifest pur....
Providing maintenance requires proof of the wife's inability to support herself; unsubstantiated claims do not merit legal relief.
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.