Bombay High Court
MR. VIJAY VINAYAK SASVADKARversusMRS. VRUSHALI VIJAY SASVADKAR
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The appellate court upheld the Family Court's maintenance order, finding no error and dismissing the revision application.
Summary
The applicant, Mr. Vijay Vinayak Sasvadkar, challenged a Family Court order that granted his former wife, Mrs. Vrushali Vijay Sasvadkar, maintenance of Rs.20,000 per month. The applicant argued that the respondent was employed at ICCS Company earning the same amount, had not produced any income documents, and that her educational qualifications should preclude maintenance, also citing his own business liabilities. The respondent contended that no proof of her employment or income was on record and that she had no independent source of income at the time of filing for maintenance. The High Court examined the material evidence, noted the applicant’s business turnover of over Rs.1 crore, and held that the respondent’s education alone does not negate her right to maintenance. Finding no infirmity in the Family Court’s assessment of the parties’ financial positions, the Court dismissed the civil revision application and upheld the maintenance order.
Issues considered
- Whether the Family Court erred in granting maintenance to the respondent despite alleged income and lack of documentary evidence.
- Whether the respondent's educational qualifications affect her entitlement to maintenance.
- Whether the applicant's higher income and business liabilities should alter the maintenance amount.
Subjects
- maintenance
- family law
- divorce
- financial position
- educational qualification
- civil revision
- Bombay High Court
Judgment
3-CRA-590-2025 (C).doc
N.S.Kamble
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 590 OF 2025
Mr. Vijay Vinayak Sasvadkar ...Applicant
Versus
Mrs. Vrushali Vijay Sasvadkar ...Respondent
____________________________________________________________
Digitally signed
by NILAM
NILAM SANTOSH Ms.Pooja B. Makhija, for the Applicant.
SANTOSH KAMBLE
KAMBLE Date:
2026.09.22 Mr.Ghansham Jadhav, for the Respondent.
12:58:02 +0530
____________________________________________________________
CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.
DATE : 16th SEPTEMBER, 2026
P.C. :
. The challenge in this Application is to the order passed by
learned Family Court, Pune, granting maintenance of Rs.20,000/- per
month to the Respondent.
2. It is contention of learned counsel for the Applicant that
Respondent is working in ICCS Company at Mahape Ghansoli, Navi
Mumbai with salary of Rs.20,000/- per month. The Application for
maintenance was filed nearby two years after filing of divorce petition,
which was after thought. The learned counsel further submitted that the
Respondent has not filed an affidavit disclosing her income. No Bank
statement or other document were placed on record to show the actual
income of the Respondent. The learned counsel further submitted that the
Page 1 of 3
3-CRA-590-2025 (C).doc
N.S.Kamble
learned Judge has not considered the educational qualification of the
Respondent. The Applicant has other liabilities but this fact is not
considered by the learned Judge while determining the amount of
maintenance and requested to allow the Application.
3. It is contention of learned counsel for Respondent that no
documents have been produced on record to show that the Respondent is
working in ICCS company and that she is earning a salary of Rs.20,000/-
per month. Though the respondent is educationally qualified and capable of
earning but at the time of the filing maintenance application, she had no
independent source of income. The Applicant is carrying on business in the
name of Vijayraj Fire Sales with annual turn over of Rs.1 Crore. The
learned judge has passed well reasoned order and requested to dismiss the
Application.
4. I have heard both learned counsel. Perused impugned order and
documents produced on record.
5. It is Applicant’s case that Respondent works at ICCS company at
Mahape Ghansoli, Navi Mumbai. However, no documents produced on
record to show her income. Whereas, the documents produced on record
shows that the Applicant carrying on a business by name Vijayraj Fire sales
and GST documents with list at Exhibit-54 shows that the Applicant runs
Page 2 of 3
3-CRA-590-2025 (C).doc
N.S.Kamble
the said business and the annual turn over of the said business is more than
Rs.1 crores. On the basis of the income of the Applicant the learned Judge
has granted Rs.20,000/- per month maintenance to the Respondent and I do
not find infirmity in it.
6. I have gone through the case laws cited by the learned counsel for
the Applicant facts of the present case and cited case are different.
7. Considering the material placed on record, the learned Judge has
rightly appreciated the financial position of the parties and granted
maintenance of Rs. 20,000/- per month to the Respondent. Mere
educational qualification of the Respondent is not sufficient to deny
maintenance. I find no error or infirmity in the impugned order warranting
interference. Hence, the Application deserves to be dismissed and I pass
following order.
ORDER
(i) The Civil Revision Application is dismissed.
(ii) All pending Applications are disposed of.
(SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)
Page 3 of 3
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.