Bombay High Court
USMAN RONAK KHANversusAFREEN USMAN KHAN AND ANR
- Decided
- Disposal
- Dismissed
Holding
The revision application is dismissed; the appellate court found no merit in interfering with the magistrate's maintenance order.
Summary
The applicant, an estate agent, challenged the order of a Metropolitan Magistrate directing the respondent, a qualified Unani medical practitioner, to pay Rs.20,000 per month as maintenance for herself and her eight‑year‑old daughter. The applicant argued that the respondent was not actually employed and that his income was insufficient to justify the maintenance amount, while the respondent contended that she was the sole caretaker of the minor and that the maintenance awarded was reasonable. The appellate court examined the parties' statements of assets and liabilities, noting the applicant's annual incomes of Rs.4,15,919 and Rs.4,49,530 for the years 2021‑22 and 2022‑23 respectively, and confirmed the magistrate’s order. It observed that the maintenance amount was modest given the respondent’s circumstances and that there were arrears exceeding Rs.5,00,000. Consequently, the court found no ground for interference and dismissed the revision application.
Issues considered
- Whether the appellate court should interfere with the magistrate's order directing maintenance of Rs.20,000 per month to the respondent and her minor daughter
- Whether the respondent's claim of employment as a medical officer is substantiated for purposes of assessing maintenance
- Whether the applicant's income as an estate agent justifies a higher maintenance award
Subjects
- maintenance
- family law
- criminal revision
- income assessment
- unani medicine
Judgment
9-REVN(CRI.)-258-2025.DOC
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.258 OF 2025
Usman Ronak Khan …Applicant
Versus
Afreen Usman Khan And Anr …Respondents
Ms. Hetal Pandya i/b Sohel Syyed, for the Applicant.
Mr. Omar Hashmi a/w Suhail Shariff i/b Falcon Legal, for the
Respondent No.1
Mr. S. S. Ghag, APP, for the Respondent-State.
CORAM: MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.
DATED : 09th OCTOBER 2026
PC:-
1. Heard Ms. Pandya, learned Counsel appearing for the
Applicant and Mr. Hashmi, learned Counsel appearing for the
Respondent No.1.
2. By this Revision Application, the challenge is to the order
18th March 2025 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, City Civil
and Sessions Court, Borivali Division, Mumbai in Criminal Appeal
No.362 of 2023, as also order dated 27 th April 2023 passed by the
learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 66th Court, Andheri, Mumbi
passed below Interim Application filed in C.C.No.133/DV/2020.
Page 1
Akash Tayde
9-REVN(CRI.)-258-2025.DOC
By that order the learned Magistrate has directed payment of
Rs.20,000/- per month to the Respondent- Afreen Usman Khan and
her minor daughter and the learned Appellate Court by order
dated 18th March 2025 has confirmed the said order.
3. It is the contention of learned Counsel appearing for the
Applicant that the Applicant is an Estate Agent whereas the
Respondent No.1 is a qualified doctor and having Bachelor Degree
of Unani Medicine and Surgery and she is working as a Medical
Officer and general practitioner in various hospitals.
4. On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for the
Respondents states that the Respondent is single handedly looking
after the daughter who is minor of 8 years. The Applicant is an
Estate Agent and having huge income. The Respondent is not
working as claimed. There is no material on record showing that
the Respondent is working. He, therefore, submits that no
interference in the impugned order is warranted.
5. Perusal of the record shows that the learned Appellate Court
has observed that the statement of assets and liabilities filed by the
Page 2
Akash Tayde
9-REVN(CRI.)-258-2025.DOC
Applicant/husband shows that for the Annual Year 2021-2022 his
total income was Rs.4,15,919/- and for the Annual Year 2022-2023
total income was Rs.4,49,530/-. The Applicant is an Estate Agent.
It is correct that the Respondent is a qualified having Bachelor
Degree of Unani Medicine and Surgery.
6. However, the position on record shows that daughter is
single handedly maintained by the mother. Maintenance of only
Rs.20,000/- has been granted which is reasonable. There are huge
arrears of more than Rs.5,00,000/-.
7. Considering the above facts and circumstances, no case is
made out for interference in the impugned order.
8. Accordingly, the Revision Application is dismissed.
[MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.]
Page 3
Akash Tayde
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.