Bombay High Court
MEHERNOSH MUNCHERSHAW CHOKSEYversusPRITI SURESH SINGH
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The High Court held that the order for maid expenses is reasonable and that the revision court lacks jurisdiction to interfere under Section 438, thus dismissing the application.
Summary
The applicant, a ground staff employee, challenged the order of a Metropolitan Magistrate directing the respondent, a cabin crew employee, to pay Rs.12,000 per month for a full‑time maid caring for their twin daughters. The challenge was filed as a criminal revision under Section 438 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, questioning the legality and validity of the magistrate’s order. The court noted that both parents have a duty to maintain their children and that, given the respondent’s irregular work schedule, employing a maid is reasonable. It held that the amount ordered is reasonable and that the revision court lacks jurisdiction to interfere with the magistrate’s decision under the cited provision. Consequently, the revision application and the related interim application were dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether the order directing payment of Rs.12,000 per month for a maid is legal and valid.
- Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to interfere with the magistrate’s order under Section 438 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- maintenance
- child support
- criminal revision
- Section 438
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
- maid expenses
- family law
Judgment
18-IA-1022-2026.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Digitally
signed by CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.161 OF 2026
ARJUN
ARJUN VITTHAL
KUDHEKAR
WITH
VITTHAL
KUDHEKAR Date: INTERIM APPLICATION NO.1022 OF 2026
2026.09.16
16:56:50
+0530
Mehernosh Munchershaw Choksey ...Applicant
Versus
Priti Suresh Singh ...Respondent
——————
Mr. Shailesh Kantaria a/w Himanshu Shinde, for the Applicant.
Mr. S. S. Ghag, APP, for the Respondent-State.
——————
Coram: Madhav J. Jamdar, J.
Date: 11 September 2026
P.C.:
1. In this Criminal Revision Application, the challenge is to the
legality and validity of the Order dated 6th February 2026 passed by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge, City Civil and Sessions Court, Borivali
Division, Dindoshi, Goregaon, Mumbai in Criminal Appeal No.54 of 2023,
and the Order dated 25th November 2022 passed by the learned
Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, 68th Court, Borivali, Mumbai.
2. By the impugned Order dated 25th November 2022, the learned
Metropolitan Magistrate directed the payment of Rs.12,000/- per month
towards the expenses of a full-time maid who is looking after the twin
daughters.
3. Admittedly, the Applicant is working as Ground Staff with Etihad
Airways and the Respondent is working as Cabin Crew with Virgin
Arjun 1
18-IA-1022-2026.doc
Airways. Admittedly, the Applicant’s salary is Rs.1,50,000/- per month,
while the Respondent’s salary is about Rs.1,00,000/-.
4. It is the responsibility of both the father and the mother to
maintain their twin daughters with dignity and as per their status. It is
pertinent to note that, due to the nature of the Respondent’s
employment, it is necessary to engage a full-time maid to look after the
daughters. The amount of Rs.12,000/- granted towards the said expense
is reasonable.
5. Accordingly, no interference in the impugned Orders is warranted
under the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 438 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
6. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Application is dismissed.
7. As the Criminal Revision Application is dismissed, nothing survives
in the Interim Application and the same is also disposed of.
[Madhav J. Jamdar, J.]
Arjun 2
Checking your session…