Bombay High Court
Komal Kishan Chavhan alis Komal Dilip MohiteversusKishan Uttam Chavan
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The Court held that the previously awarded maintenance of Rs.10,000 was inadequate and ordered maintenance of Rs.13,000 per month to be paid by the husband to the wife.
Summary
The husband, Kishan Uttam Chavan, a temporary employee earning Rs.76,500 per month, was ordered by the Family Court to pay Rs.10,000 per month as maintenance to his wife, Komal Kishan Chavan, who has no income. The husband appealed (Revision Application No. 446 of 2025) claiming the amount was excessive given his obligations to his parents and sister, while the wife appealed (Revision Application No. 210 of 2026) seeking a higher amount. The High Court examined the parties' incomes, dependents, and the prevailing cost of living, concluding that the earlier maintenance award was inadequate. It therefore dismissed the husband's revision application and partly allowed the wife's, directing the husband to pay Rs.13,000 per month. The court also ordered the husband to deposit arrears of maintenance within three weeks and permitted the wife to withdraw any arrears already deposited.
Issues considered
- Whether the maintenance of Rs.10,000 per month awarded by the Family Court is adequate in view of the husband's income and dependents.
- Whether the maintenance amount should be enhanced to meet the wife's living expenses.
- What is the appropriate quantum of maintenance under the applicable personal law and Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Subjects
- maintenance
- family law
- revision
- income
- dependents
- adequacy
- inflation
- Section 125 CrPC
Judgment
7-REVN-446-2025 (CR).doc
S.S.Kilaje
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 446 OF 2025
Kishan Uttam Chavan ...Applicant/s
VERSUS
Komal Kishan Chavan ...Respondent/s
WITH
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 210 OF 2026
Komal Kishan Chavan Alias Komal Dilip Mohite ...Applicant/s
VERSUS
Kishan Uttam Chavan ...Respondent/s
_________________________________________________________________
Digitally signed
SONALI SATISH
by SONALI
Mr. Manjeet Lotankar i/b. Mr. Shailendra Ghare, Advocate for Applicant in
KILAJE
SATISH Date:
2026.09.24
KILAJE 14:13:18
REVN/446/2025 and for Respondent in REVN/210/2026.
+0530
Mr. Sumit Kothari, for Applicant in REVN/210/2026 and for Respondent
in REVN/446/2025.
_________________________________________________________________
CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.
DATE : 21st SEPTEMBER, 2026.
P.C. :
1. The challenge in the Revision Application No.446 of 2025 is to
the order passed by the learned Family Court, Pune, whereby the learned
Judge has granted maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month to
respondent/wife. The respondent/wife has also challenged the said order
seeking enhancement of the maintenance amount.
2. It is contention of learned counsel for the applicant/husband
Page 1 of 3
7-REVN-446-2025 (CR).doc
S.S.Kilaje
that applicant is not a permanent employee, he is temporary employee and
earns Rs.35,000/- per month. He has no permanent source of income. His
mother, father and sister are dependent on him. Due to complaint made
by the wife, his salary has been reduced. However, this fact has not been
considered by the learned Family Court and has granted maintenance of
Rs.10,000/- per month to the respondent/wife, which is on higher side and
requested to allow the application.
3. It is contention of learned counsel for the respondent/wife that,
as per the record, the salary of the applicant/ husband is Rs.76,500/- per
month. The respondent/wife has no source of income. It is submitted that
the respondent/wife needs the amount towards her daily expenses,
accommodation and other expenses. However, these facts are not
considered by the learned family Judge and only maintenance of
Rs.10,000/- per month has been granted, which is inadequate and
requested for enhancement of the maintenance amount.
4. I have heard both the learned counsel. Perused impugned
order. From documents produced on record it shows salary of husband
was Rs.76,500/- per month. Respondent/wife has no source of income.
On the basis of evidence produced on record, the learned Judge has passed
the impugned order. In my view, the applicant/husband was earning
Rs.76,500/- per month. His family members are dependent on him.
Page 2 of 3
7-REVN-446-2025 (CR).doc
S.S.Kilaje
Considering the present cost of living and inflation, the amount of
Rs.10,000/- awarded towards maintenance is inadequate. The
respondent/wife needs some more amount for her maintenance and I pass
following order :
ORDER
(i) Revision Application No. 446 of 2025 is dismissed.
Revision Application No. 210 of 2026 is partly allowed.
(ii) The respondent/husband in Revision Application No.210
of 2026 shall pay Rs.13,000/- per month as maintenance
to the applicant/ wife from the date of filing of
application.
(iii) The applicant /wife is permitted to withdraw the arrears
of maintenance deposited by the respondent / husband.
(iv) The respondent / husband shall deposit the remaining
arrears of maintenance within three weeks from the date
of uploading of this order.
5. Both the Revision 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.