Bombay High Court
MR.ATUL RALEBHATversusMRS.NEHA RALEBHAT
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The High Court held that the Family Court erred in fixing permanent alimony and child maintenance without evidence and remanded the matter for a fresh determination based on the parties' actual earnings and needs.
Summary
The husband appealed against the Family Court’s order granting the wife permanent alimony of Rs.10,00,000 and monthly maintenance of Rs.10,000 for their minor daughter, arguing that the amount was fixed without any evidence of his income or the wife’s needs. The Family Court had earlier granted divorce on the basis of cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and found the husband satisfied the conditions of Section 23(1). The High Court observed that the lower court had merely assumed the husband’s earnings of Rs.1,00,000 per month and therefore erred in fixing the alimony amount without a proper evidentiary basis. It remanded the matter to the Family Court to determine permanent alimony and child maintenance after taking statements of earnings, assets, liabilities, and needs of both parties. The appellant was directed to continue paying Rs.10,000 per month for the child pending the fresh determination, and the wife was ordered to open an account for these deposits. The appeal and the interim application were disposed of, with the alimony issue sent back for re‑evaluation.
Issues considered
- Whether the Family Court can fix permanent alimony and child maintenance on the basis of speculative assumptions without evidentiary proof of the husband’s income and the wife’s needs.
- Whether the direction of permanent alimony should be remanded for fresh determination in accordance with the requirements of the Hindu Marriage Act.
Legislation cited
- Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — s. 13(1)(ia), 23(1)
Subjects
- permanent alimony
- child maintenance
- divorce
- Hindu Marriage Act
- family court
- remand
- evidence
- financial disclosure
Judgment
NISHA Digitally signed by
NISHA SANDEEP
SANDEEP CHITNIS
Date: 2026.08.29
CHITNIS 17:40:21 +0530 16-FCA.38.2026wia.2963.2026.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO.38 OF 2026
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.2963 OF 2026
IN
FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO.38 OF 2026
Atul Ralebhat ...Appellant/Applicant
Versus
Neha Ralebhat ...Respondent
Mr. Ashwin Pimpale for the Appellant/Applicant-Husband
Ms. Amtuzehra Chimthanawala for the Respondent-Wife.
CORAM: BHARATI DANGRE &
ASHISH S. CHAVAN, JJ.
DATE : 28th AUGUST 2026
P.C. :
1. The appeal filed by the husband raises a limited challenge
to the directions issued in the impugned judgment passed by the
learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Pune on 31 st October 2025,
directing the appellant to pay permanent alimony of Rs.10,00,000/- to
the wife and Rs.10,000/- per month towards maintenance of the child
from the date of filing of the petition till further orders.
The appellant does not wish to challenge the direction
contained in clause (b) of the impugned judgment, namely, the
N. S. Chitnis 1/6
16-FCA.38.2026wia.2963.2026.doc
dissolution of the marriage solemnized between the parties on 11 th
July 2016 at Pune, with effect from the date of the decree.
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant-
husband as well as the learned counsel representing the respondent-
wife. It is pertinent to note that, in the proceedings filed by the
husband seeking dissolution of marriage under Section 13(1)(ia) of the
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the learned Judge, Family Court,
formulated two issues viz. (i) whether the petitioner proved that
respondent has treated her with cruelty as contemplated under Section
13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and (ii) whether the
petitioner has fulfilled condition under Section 23(1) of the Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955. Both the issues came to be answered in the
affirmative.
In arriving at this conclusion, the evidence tendered by the
petitioner (PW1) was taken into consideration. However, the judgment
specifically reocrds that, though the respondent was well aware about
the allegations leveled against her, she failed to defend the case as per
N. S. Chitnis 2/6
16-FCA.38.2026wia.2963.2026.doc
the rights available to her and a reference is also made to a notce sent
by the respondent wherein she sought separation, mediation and
parental custody. Considering that the respondent had not bothered
to defend herself, an inference was drawn that she had admitted the
allegations and that both the parties are not willing to continue the
relationship.
Undisputedly, the wife has not raised a challenge to the
decree of divorce.
3. As far as the grant of permanent alimony is concerned,
without considering any evidence, the learned Judge, Family Court,
proceeded on the assumption that the petitioner’s income, he being a
skilled and qualified person, must be Rs.1,00,000/- per month and
based on this, permenent alimony of Rs.10,00,000/- was granted to the
wife, along with payment of maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month
towards the minor daughter, till further order is passed.
Paragraph 17 of the impugned judgment records thus:-
“17. The child can be said as sufferer of this dispute
without any fault. The child is of tendered age.
N. S. Chitnis 3/6
16-FCA.38.2026wia.2963.2026.doc
The child is in custody of respondent since birth.
The petitioner has mentioned the occupation of
respondent as "home-maker". The petitioner has
admitted his occupation as "service". He has
admitted that he was working in Germany. Now,
he is shifted to India. It appears that petitioner is
skilled and qualified person. The parties cohabited
for more than 7 years. In such situation, petitioner
is bound to make provision for permanent
alimony of respondent and monthly maintenance
of child. The petitioner was bound to disclose his
financial condition. In absence of details, it can be
assumed that petitioner's net income must be
Rs.1,00,000/-per month. Considering this aspect,
this Court is of opinion that permanent alimony of
Rupees Ten Lakhs to respondent and Rs.10,000/-
per month to minor daughter towards monthly
maintenance from the date of filing of petition till
further order, will be sufficient to meet the ends of
justice. Hence, I answer point nos. 1 to 3
accordingly.”
4. On hearing the counsel for the parties and on perusal of
the impugned judgment, we are satisfied that the contest raised by the
appellant is only to the direction of permanent alimony and the
maintainence. We indicated to the learned counel for the appellant
that, though we deem it appropriate to remand the matter back to the
learned Judge, Family Court, Pune, for determination of the amount of
permanent alimony as well as the amount of maintenance to be paid to
N. S. Chitnis 4/6
16-FCA.38.2026wia.2963.2026.doc
the daughter, which would necessarily have to be commensurate with
the earnings of the appellant and since the learned Judge has merely
carried out a guess work without any evidence produced on record as
to what is the earning of the husband and what is the need of the wife,
we permit the respondent-wife to file her affidavit before the Family
Court, upon the proceedings being remanded and we expect the
learned Judge, Family Court to determine the amount of permanent
alimony by drawing a Statement of the earnings of the husband and
the needs of the wife, and by permitting both the parties to adduce
appropriate evidence, after taking on record the Statements of Assets
and Liabilities of both the parties.
However, while remanding the matter, we direct the
Family Court to decide the said proceedings as regards the
mainenance/permanent almony payable to the wife, within a period of
six months from today. However, till that time the apellant shall
continue to make the payment of Rs.10,000/- per month towards
maintenance of the daughter and subject to the outcome of the
proceedings before the Family Court, this amount shall be liable to
N. S. Chitnis 5/6
16-FCA.38.2026wia.2963.2026.doc
any adjustment, if necessary, in future.
For the purpose of enabling the appellant to deposit the
amount of maintenance payable towards the daughter as per the
impugned judgment on a provisional basis, we direct the wife to open
an account in India and furnish the details thereof to the appellant, so
that the monthly deposits may be made in the said account.
The Family Court Appeal stands disposed of.
Interim Application No.2963 of 2026 shall also stand
disposed of.
ASHISH S. CHAVAN, J. BHARATI DANGRE, J.
N. S. Chitnis 6/6
Checking your session…