Bombay High Court
MADHURI SAMIR DUDHGAONKARversusSAMIR GANESHRAO DUDHGAONKAR
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The High Court quashed the Family Court’s maintenance order, remanded the case for fresh hearing on the basis of evidence, and directed interim maintenance of Rs 75,000 per month.
Summary
The High Court examined a writ petition challenging a Family Court order that granted Rs 1 lakh per month as maintenance to the wife and two daughters, based on an assumed monthly income of the husband of at least Rs 3 lakh. The petitioner‑husband argued that his actual income, as per his affidavit, was only Rs 7‑8 lakh annually and that the court’s assumption was unfounded, while the wife contended that the husband’s affluent background justified a higher maintenance. The Court held that the Family Court had relied on speculation rather than concrete evidence to determine income and therefore erred in fixing the quantum of maintenance. Consequently, the order was quashed, the matter remanded for a fresh hearing, and the parties were directed to file fresh affidavits of assets and liabilities. An interim maintenance of Rs 75,000 per month, together with educational and society charges, was ordered, and the contempt petition was disposed.
Issues considered
- Whether the Family Court erred in assuming the husband’s income without proper evidence for maintenance purposes
- Whether the maintenance award of Rs 1 lakh per month is justified in view of the parties’ financial positions
- Whether the impugned order should be set aside and the matter remanded for fresh determination
- Whether the contempt petition should be disposed in light of the writ petition outcome
Subjects
- maintenance
- family court
- income assessment
- affidavit of assets and liabilities
- remand for fresh hearing
- contempt petition
- standard of living
- maternity
Judgment
5-CP-243-2024 (C)(1).doc
S.S.Kilaje
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 9798 OF 2023
Samir Ganeshrao Dudhgaonkar ...Petitioner/s
VERSUS
Madhuri Samir Dudhgaonkar ...Respondent/s
WITH
CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 243 OF 2024
Madhuri Samir Dudhgaonkar ...Petitioner/s
VERSUS
Samir Ganeshrao Dudhgaonkar ...Respondent/s
_________________________________________________________________
SONALI by
Digitally signed
SONALI
SATISH KILAJE
SATISH Date:
Ms. Seema Sarnaik, Senior Advocate a/w. Ms. Saima Shaikh, Mr. Vinod
2026.10.01
KILAJE 15:14:35
+0530 Sanghvikar, Mr. Shubham B. Choudhar and Mr. Nikhil Vijay Adkine,
Advocate for Respondent in C.P. No. 243 of 2024 and for Petitioner in W.P.
No 9798 of 2023.
Ms. Sandhya Nanavare, Advocate for Petitioner in C.P. No. 243 of 2024
and for Respondent in W.P. No 9798 of 2023.
_________________________________________________________________
CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.
DATE : 24th SEPTEMBER, 2026.
P.C. :
1. The challenge is this petition is to the impugned order passed
by the Family Court, Thane, whereby the learned Judge has awarded
maintenance of Rs.1 lakh to the respondent-wife and two daughters.
2. It is contention of learned counsel for the petitioner-husband
that as per the affidavit of Assets and Liabilities filed by the husband, his
Page 1 of 5
5-CP-243-2024 (C)(1).doc
S.S.Kilaje
annual income was Rs. 7 to 8 lakh. However, the learned Judge has
assumed his monthly income not less than Rs.3 lakh on the basis of having
drivers, fleet of cars and he stays in a posh area of Mumbai, which is
erroneous. Learned counsel further submitted that the respondent-wife is
a Bachelor of Engineering, but this fact has not been considered by the
learned Judge and has awarded Rs.1 lakh per month as maintenance to the
wife and the two daughters, which is on the higher side. Learned counsel
further submitted that petitioner is paying society charges, maintenance
charges and educational expenses. Learned counsel further submitted that
the matter be remanded for fresh hearing as impugned order has been
passed on the basis of assumed income of the petitioner and requested to
allow his writ petition and dismiss the contempt petition.
3. It is contention of learned counsel for respondent-wife that
petitioner-husband is from an affluent family. He has a strong political
background. He has contested the Lok Sabha election as an independent
candidate. He has agricultural land. He has completed his education in
USA. He stays in a posh area of Mumbai and has luxurious cars. This
shows that he has handsome monthly income. Though affidavit of Assets
and Liabilities shows his income to be Rs.7 to 8 lakh, his actual income is
in crores of rupees. The respondent-wife has no source of income, though
she is a Bachelor of Engineering. She completed her engineering in the
Page 2 of 5
5-CP-243-2024 (C)(1).doc
S.S.Kilaje
year 2002 and thereafter she has not joined any service. She is a housewife
and is taking care of her two daughters. She is facing difficulty in
maintaining herself and her two daughters. The learned Judge has passed
a well-reasoned order. No interference is required in it and requested to
dismiss petition.
4. I have heard both the learned counsel. Perused impugned order
and documents produced on record. While passing the order, the learned
Judge has observed that the petitioner-husband is born and brought up in
a strong political background. His father and mother are pensioners. It is
further observed that he has no dependents, except respondent-wife and
the daughters. He has completed his Master’s degree in the USA. He is
staying in a posh area of Mumbai. It can be inferred that petitioner-
husband has driver and owns luxurious cars. On this basis, his monthly
income is presumed to be not less than Rs.3 lakh. The wife and her
daughters have the right to enjoy the same standard of living as the
petitioner enjoys. On that ground, the learned Judge has awarded
maintenance of Rs.60,000/-per month to wife and Rs.20,000/- per month
to each of the daughters, totaling Rs.1 lakh per month.
5. In my view, the learned Judge has passed the order on the basis
of assumption. The determination of income ought to be based on
evidence. Considering this fact, I find it a fit case to remand the matter
Page 3 of 5
5-CP-243-2024 (C)(1).doc
S.S.Kilaje
for fresh hearing, till decision of the maintenance application. The
petitioner shall pay Rs.75,000/- per month to the wife and two daughters
and shall bear the educational expenses and society maintenance charges.
On the basis of evidence produced on record, the learned Judge shall
decide the quantum of maintenance afresh. The learned counsel for the
petitioner-husband submitted that this amount will be paid without
prejudice to the rights of the petitioner. In view of above, I pass following
order.
ORDER
(i) Writ Petition No. 9798 of 2023 is partly allowed.
(ii) The impugned order passed below Exhibits-27 and 31 is
quashed and set aside.
(iii) The matter is remanded back for fresh hearing on Exhibits-
27 and 31.
(iv) Both the parties shall file fresh affidavits of Assets and
Liabilities.
(v) Petitioner-husband shall pay Rs.75,000/- per month to
respondent- wife and the two daughters and shall also pay
educational expenses and society charges.
(vi) This order is without prejudice to the rights of the
petitioner-husband. The learned Judge shall decide the
Page 4 of 5
5-CP-243-2024 (C)(1).doc
S.S.Kilaje
quantum of maintenance afresh on the basis of evidence
produced on record.
(vii) The learned Family Court is requested to decide Exhibits-27
and 31 as early as possible, preferably within six months
from the date of receipt of this order.
(viii) The Contempt Petition No. 243 of 2024 is accordingly
disposed of.
(SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)
Page 5 of 5
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.