Bombay High Court
ANITA SUBRAMANIANversusC ARUN CHELLA SAMRAJ MUKILESH
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The appellate court quashed the Family Court's maintenance order and remanded the matter for a fresh hearing, directing continuation of interim maintenance.
Summary
The petitioner, Anita Subramanian, sought maintenance from her husband, alleging that the Family Court failed to consider her evidence of his total income, including rental earnings, and that he had not paid the maintenance awarded since 2019. The respondent contended that the petitioner had her own source of income and that the Family Court's order was well‑reasoned. The High Court examined the impugned judgment and found that the lower court had indeed omitted material evidence and had possibly understated the husband's income. Consequently, the Court quashed the Family Court order dated 26 November 2021 and remanded the matter for a fresh hearing, directing that both parties be given an opportunity to present evidence. It also ordered that the respondent continue to pay the maintenance already granted pending the fresh determination, and directed the fresh hearing be concluded within four months.
Issues considered
- Whether the Family Court erred by not considering the petitioner's evidence of the respondent's total income, including rental income, in granting maintenance.
- Whether the appellate court should set aside the Family Court's maintenance order and remand the case for a fresh hearing.
- Whether interim maintenance should continue to be payable pending the fresh determination.
Subjects
- maintenance
- family court
- remand
- quash
- interim relief
- marital dispute
- evidence
- appellate jurisdiction
Judgment
3-WP-11708-2022 (C).doc
N.S.Kamble
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 11708 OF 2022
Anita Subramanian ...Petitioner
VERSUS
C Arun Chella Samraj Mulkesh
S/o Mr L Chelladuri(late) ...Respondent
Digitally signed
by NILAM
WITH
NILAM SANTOSH
SANTOSH KAMBLE CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 56 OF 2025
KAMBLE Date:
2026.09.07
Anita Subramanian ...Petitioner
11:53:03 +0530
VERSUS
C Arun Chella Samraj Mukilesh ...Respondent
____________________________________________________________
Mr.Sharad Bhosale, for the Petitioner in both Petitions.
Ms.Seema Carvalho a/w Ms.Kajal Wadhwana, Ms.Priyanka More i/b H.
Kumar Vaidyanathan, for the Respondent.
____________________________________________________________
CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.
DATE : 3rd SEPTEMBER 2026
P.C. :
. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned counsel for
the Respondent.
2. The learned counsel for the Petitioner-wife submits that though
the Respondent has adequate source of income, and the Petitioner had
produced the documents in that regard before the learned Family Court, but
that evidence was not considered by the learned Family Court. Hence,
requested the matter be remanded to the Family Court for fresh hearing.
Page 1 of 3
3-WP-11708-2022 (C).doc
N.S.Kamble
3. The learned counsel further submitted that the Petitioner is
fighting to receive maintenance since year 2019 and Respondent has not
been paying the maintenance amount granted by the Family Court. The
Petitioner is struggling to maintain herself and her son who is currently in
4th standard. Hence, requested to remand the matter to Family Court and
expedite the hearing.
4. It is contention of learned counsel for the Respondent that the
Petitioner has her own source of income. The learned Judge has passed well
reasoned order. The opportunity was given to both the parties to lead the
evidence. After leading evidence, the learned judge has passed well reasoned
order and there is no need to remand the matter and requested to dismiss
the Petition.
5. I have heard both learned counsel. Perused impugned judgment
and order and documents produced on record.
6. In the impugned judgment the learned Judge has granted
maintenance on the basis of the income of the Respondent-Husband, but
there is no mention of rental income. It appears that the Respondent has
deliberately shown less income. While passing the order, the learned Judge
has not considered the evidence led by the Petitioner, Hence, I find it a fit
case to remand the matter to Family Court and I pass following order.
Page 2 of 3
3-WP-11708-2022 (C).doc
N.S.Kamble
ORDER
(i) The Petition is partly allowed.
(ii) The order dated 26th November 2021 passed by the
Family Court No.7, Mumbai is quashed and set aside.
(iii) The matter is remanded to the Family Court for fresh
hearing.
(iv) The learned Judge shall decide the maintenance
Application afresh by giving opportunity to both the parties to
lead evidence in respect of their case and decide it on its own
merits.
(v) Till decision of the Application the Respondent shall
pay maintenance already granted.
(vi) As the Interim Application was filed in the year 2019,
the learned Judge is requested to decide the maintenance
Application as early as possible, preferably within four months,
after receipt of this order.
(vii) The Contempt Petition is accordingly disposed of.
(viii) All pending Applications are disposed of.
(SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)
Page 3 of 3
Checking your session…