Bombay High Court

MRS.TRUPTI HUKMICHAND KHANDELWALversusMR.HUKMICHAND PRAKASH KHANDELWAL

Decided: 31 July 2026
Disposal: Disposed Off

Holding

The High Court held that the Family Court’s order denying maintenance was inadequately reasoned and must be remanded for a reasoned order in accordance with the principles laid down in Rajnesh v. Neha.

Summary

The wife filed a petition for maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC after being driven out of the marital home, while the husband filed for divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act. The Family Court initially granted interim maintenance but later denied the wife’s maintenance in its final common judgment, relying solely on rent from a jointly owned flat as her income and without providing a reasoned order. The wife appealed, seeking interim maintenance of Rs.75,000 per month and costs, arguing that the Family Court erred by not considering the affidavits of assets and liabilities and by not allowing her to cross‑examine the husband. The High Court held that the Family Court’s order was inadequately reasoned, misapplied the principles laid down in Rajnesh v. Neha, and failed to consider the evidence. Consequently, the appeal was partly allowed and the maintenance petition was remanded to the Family Court for a fresh, reasoned order, taking into account the maintenance already awarded in the DV proceeding.

Issues considered

The Family Court’s denial of maintenance to the wife was without a reasoned order.
Whether rent from a jointly owned flat can be treated as the wife’s income to deny maintenance.
Whether the High Court should entertain the interim application or remand the matter.
Application of the maintenance principles laid down in Rajnesh v. Neha.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 125
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — s. 13(1)(ia), 26

Subjects

maintenance
Hindu Marriage Act
Section 125 CrPC
interim relief
family court
reasoned order
divorce
child custody
joint property
domestic violence proceeding

Judgment

NISHA Digitally signed by
NISHA SANDEEP
SANDEEP CHITNIS
Date: 2026.08.07
35-FCAST.37627.2025w.ia(1).doc

CHITNIS 17:01:20 +0530
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

FAMILY COURT APPEAL (STAMP) NO.37627 OF 2025
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.38787 OF 2025
(FOR INTERIM MAINTENANCE)
IN
FAMILY COURT APPEAL(STAMP) NO.37627 OF 2025

Trupti Hukmichand Khandelwal
Age about 40 years, Occ.- Household
R/at - C/O Shobha Govind Sharma
‘Jashodha Enclave’, 4th Floor
S. No.222/223, Narayan Peth
Pune - 411030
Mobile No. (+91) 7721904227
Email Id - [email protected] …Appellant/Applicant

Versus

Hukmichand Prakash Khandelwal
Age-39 years, Occ.- Service
R/at - 505, 4th Floor
Flat No. 15, ‘Gurukrupa’ Co-op Hsg. Soc.
Guruwar Peth, Pune - 411042
Mobile No. (+91) 9970277737
Email Id - [email protected] …Respondent

Mr. Pratik Date for the Appellant/Applicant-Wife

Mr. Rajender Singh Saluja with Mr. Balraj Nishad for the Respondent-
Husband.

N. S. Chitnis 1/13
35-FCAST.37627.2025w.ia(1).doc

CORAM: BHARATI DANGRE &
MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, JJ.

DATE : 31st JULY 2026

JUDGMENT (Per Manjusha Deshpande, J.) :

1. This interim application has been filed by the appellant-

wife for grant of interim maintenance to the tune of Rs.75,000/- per

month to the appellant from the date of the application and costs of

litigation of Rs.2,00,000/- to be awarded in her favour, pending the

final disposal of the Family Court Appeal filed by her.

2. Upon hearing the Appeal on 7 th January 2026, while

issuing notice the order passed by the learned Judge, Family Court

No.2, Pune, in Marriage Petition No.A-810 of 2023 and Petition

No.E-65 of 2023 is stayed only to the extent of grant of divorce.

Being aggrieved by the common judgment passed by the

Family Court, Pune dated 12th August 2025, in Marriage Petition

No.A-810 of 2023 and Petition No.E-65 of 2023, the present Family

Court Appeal has been filed by the appellant-wife, by which she was

denied maintenance and inadequate maintenance has been awarded to

N. S. Chitnis 2/13
35-FCAST.37627.2025w.ia(1).doc

the minor son-Aarav.

The brief facts as pleaded by the appellant are that:-

(i) The marriage between the parties was solemnized at Pune, as per

Hindu rites on 26th April 2012;

(ii) A son viz. Aarav was born out of marriage on 12 th May 2014;

(iii) The respondent has driven out of their house the appellant and

their minor son on 23rd February 2023;

(iv) The appellant filed Petition for Maintenance under Section 125

of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) viz. Petition No.E-65 of

2023, before the Family Court, Pune on 15 th April 2023;

(v) The respondent-husband filed a Petition for divorce under

Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and for the custody

of the minor child under Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act against

the appellant-wife in Family Court, Pune;

(vi) The Family Court, Pune passed an order on the application for

interim maintenance directing the respondent to pay Rs.15,000/- per

month to the appellant and Rs.5,000/- per month to their minor son,

towards their maintenance vide order dated 9th July 2024;

N. S. Chitnis 3/13
35-FCAST.37627.2025w.ia(1).doc

(vii) The respondent had filed an affidavit in lieu of Examination-in-

Chief in Divorce proceedings filed by him on 9 th July 2024;

(viii) The advocate for the appellant conducted cross-examination of

the respondent on 10th March 2025, after which the respondent closed

his evidence and the matter was posted for evidence of the appellant in

divorce proceedings;

(ix) The appellant also filed her affidavit in lieu of Examination-in-

Chief in the maintenance proceedings. At this stage the learned Judge

of the Family Court, Pune, clubbed both the proceedings i.e. the

divorce and the maintenance proceedings for the purpose of recording

of the evidence;

(x) On the basis of the evidence led by the parties, the learned Judge

of the Family Court, Pune, has been pleased to pass an common

Judgment in both the proceedings, thereby allowing the petition for

Divorce dissolving the marriage between the parties under Section

13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act. The joint custody of the Master

Aarav, is given to the parties. However, physical custody is retained

with the mother i.e. the appellant with free access to the respondent-

N. S. Chitnis 4/13
35-FCAST.37627.2025w.ia(1).doc

father. So far as the maintenance application is concerned, the

respondent-husband has been directed to pay Rs.10,000/- per month

towards maintenance of Master Aarav from the date of application, till

he attains age of majority, whereas, the claim of maintenance of the

appellant-wife, has been rejected.

3. The learned counsel Mr. Pratik Date appearing for the

appellant-wife submits that, though of issue of maintenance has been

framed by the learned Judge of the Family Court, there is no reasoning

recorded by the Family Court to refuse maintenance to the appellant.

The only reason recorded is that during the cross-examination the

appellant had admitted that there was one flat at Erandwane, Pune,

jointly registered in the name of her mother and herself, which fetched

rent of Rs.15,000/- per month. This admission is relied on to hold that

the appellant is having sufficient means to maintain herself.

It is submitted that although the Affidavit of Assets and

Liabilities have been placed on record by both the parties, the contents

of the affidavits so filed, has not been gone into by the learned Judge

N. S. Chitnis 5/13
35-FCAST.37627.2025w.ia(1).doc

of the Family Court who has passed a cryptic order without discussing

the assets and liabilities of either of the parties. As a result of the

cryptic order, she has been denied the maintenance. It is submitted that

infact during pendency of proceedings while passing interim order of

maintenance, the learned Judge of the Family Court has awarded

Rs.15,000/- per month to the appellant and Rs.5,000/- per month to

their minor son, by observing that, the appellant has no source of

income and assuming that the income of respondent was around

Rs.90,000/- per month.

A specific submission is made that on 8 th May 2025, the

appellant had filed her Affidavit in lieu of Examination-in-Chief in the

Petition for Divorce only to the extent of the Divorce proceedings.

Since, both the proceedings were clubbed together by the Family Court

on 8th April 2025, at the instance of the Court the appellant had

proceeded only with one of the two Chief Affidavits and did not lead

evidence in both the cases. Since her affidavit filed in the Petition for

Maintenance was more elaborate and containing details relating to

maintenance, she had not pressed the Affidavit in lieu of Examination-

N. S. Chitnis 6/13
35-FCAST.37627.2025w.ia(1).doc

in-Chief in the Petition for Divorce and decided to proceed with her

evidence in the Petition for Maintenance. Accordingly, appellant has

filed her evidence close pursis in Divorce proceedings on 9 th June

2025, reserving her right to lead evidence in maintenance case

separately.

It is submitted that, on that very day the Advocate for the

respondent cross-examined the Appellant on the basis of her Affidavit

in lieu of Examination-in-Chief filed in Petition for Maintenance.

During her cross-examination, the learned Judge of the Family Court

had committed error in recording one of her depositions, therefore she

immediately filed an application to correct the error, however, her

application has been turned down and the matter was directly posted

for Final Hearing, consequently denying her an opportunity to lead

evidence.

It is submitted that, the learned Judge has committed an

error by not directing the respondent-husband to file his Affidavit in

lieu of Examination-in-Chief in support of his pleadings, against the

claim of maintenance of the appellant-wife, resulting in denial to cross-

N. S. Chitnis 7/13
35-FCAST.37627.2025w.ia(1).doc

examine him by the appellant. This, according to the appellant is a

grave error which has resulted in depriving her of valuable rights.

Consequently, there is no reasoned order after discussing the evidence

lead by the parties, insofar as, maintenance to the appellant-wife is

concerned. It is therefore, submitted that the interim application for

maintenance filed by the appellant-wife deserves to be allowed by

granting her maintenance at the rate of Rs.75,000/- per month, after

taking into consideration the income of the respondent-husband which

is reflected in the Affidavit of Assets and Liabilities filed by him.

4. Per Contra the learned counsel Mr. Rajender Singh Saluja

appearing for the respondent-husband would submit that, the

appellant has not come before this Court with clean hands and has

suppressed that, she had filed simultaneously D.V. proceeding, after the

judgment has been delivered by the Family Court, she has been

successful in getting an amount of Rs.10,000/- per month towards

interim maintenance to her from 12th August 2025 vide order dated 1 st

January 2026, by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court

N. S. Chitnis 8/13
35-FCAST.37627.2025w.ia(1).doc

No.4, Pune.

He would further submit that the learned Judge of the

Family Court has framed issue about maintenance and has also passed

a well-reasoned order after considering the source of income of the

appellant. So far as the child-Aarav is concerned, his physical custody

has already been retained with the appellant, and he has been awarded

an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards his maintenance. Thus, according to

him, after carefully going through the evidence of both the parties, the

issue of maintenance has been answered by the learned Judge. Thus, at

this stage, the interim application filed by the appellant-wife does not

deserve any consideration.

5. We have heard the respective parties and gone through the

documents placed on record along with the Family Court Appeal as

well as the Interim Application. In the wake of an interim order

granting maintenance to the appellant-wife, which has been refused in

the final order we have considered the present pleadings in the interim

application for maintenance, pending the Family Court Appeal, along

N. S. Chitnis 9/13
35-FCAST.37627.2025w.ia(1).doc

with the impugned judgment of the Family Court. Since arguments

have been advanced by the appellant contending that an opportunity

to lead the evidence has been denied to her insofar as, her petition for

maintenance is concerned, we find that issues have been framed in

Petition No.E-65 of 2023 about entitlement of maintenance to the

appellant and Master Aarav. However, as a result of curtailment of the

proceedings by the learned Judge of the Family Court without any

Affidavit in lieu of Examination-in-Chief of the respondent-husband

in the petition for maintenance filed by wife, the learned Judge has

proceeded to pass the judgment in case of the petition for maintenance

in a hasty manner. As a result, we do not find any recording of

reasoning by the learned Judge, on the issue of entitlement for

maintenance by the appellant. The only reason for refusal of

maintenance appears to be the joint ownership of flat, which fetches

rent of Rs.15,000/- per month. This rent is treated as her income to

deny her maintenance. In our view, this order suffers from inadequacy

of reasoning on the issue of maintenance in the common judgment

passed by the Family Court. Inspite of filing of Affidavit of

N. S. Chitnis 10/13
35-FCAST.37627.2025w.ia(1).doc

Assets and Liabilities and other evidence led by both the parties, the

learned Judge has not taken into consideration the contents of these

affidavits and the accompanying documents to record his findings on

the issue of maintenance framed by him.

In the landmark decision in the case of Rajnesh vs. Neha

and Another1, the Hon’ble the Apex Court has laid down the

guidelines while granting maintenance for bringing consistency and

uniformity in cases of maintenance. The elaborate judgment of the

Hon’ble Apex Court has taken into consideration all the enactments

containing provision for maintenance and also the judgments

governing the issue of maintenance pronounced upon by various High

Courts as well as the Apex Court. This judgment contains the various

factors to be taken into account while granting maintenance. We find

that these guiding principles have not been followed by the learned

Judge while pronouncing upon the right of the appellant to receive

maintenance. A reasoned order needs to be passed on the issue of

maintenance framed by the Family Court.

1 (2021) 2 SCC 324

N. S. Chitnis 11/13
35-FCAST.37627.2025w.ia(1).doc

Therefore, instead of entertaining the interim application

for maintenance before this Court at this stage in our view, it would

more appropriate to remand the case of the appellant-wife, only to the

extent of Petition No.E-65 of 2023 for maintenance to be decided

afresh on the basis of evidence already placed on record. The learned

Judge, while passing the order on issue of maintenance to be awarded

to the appellant, shall also take into account the maintenance already

awarded to the appellant under the D.V. proceeding vide order dated

01st January 2026. The learned Judge, Family Court, shall decide the

petition for maintenance, guided by the principles laid down by the

Hon’ble the Apex Court in the case of Rajnesh (supra), and the

evidence already placed on record by the parties, by passing a reasoned

order. Hence, we pass the following order:-

ORDER

i) The Family Court Appeal is partly allowed;

ii) Petition No.E-65 of 2023 filed by wife for maintenance is

remanded back to the Family Court No.2, Pune for passing a reasoned

order;

N. S. Chitnis 12/13
35-FCAST.37627.2025w.ia(1).doc

iii) The learned Judge of the Family Court shall take into account

the maintenance awarded in the D.V. proceeding while passing the

reasoned order.

Family Court Appeal is accordingly disposed of.

In view of the disposal of the Family Court Appeal, nothing

survives for consideration in the Interim Application (for Interim

Maintenance) being Interim Application No.38787 of 2025. The same

is also disposed of accordingly.

MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J. BHARATI DANGRE, J.

N. S. Chitnis 13/13

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…