Bombay High Court
VASANT BHASKAR VISPUTEversusASHWINI VASANT VISPUTE AND ANR
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
An adult son who is employed and earning a salary is not entitled to maintenance, and the earlier order granting such maintenance is quashed while the order for the wife remains in force.
Summary
Vasant Bhaskar Vispute filed a criminal revision application challenging a Family Court order that directed him to pay maintenance to his wife and his 24‑year‑old son. The applicant sought to withdraw the part of the application concerning his wife and argued that his son, being an adult employed with a salary of ₹25,000 per month, was not entitled to maintenance. The court examined the affidavit confirming the son’s age and employment, and held that a major earning son cannot claim maintenance. Consequently, the court quashed the earlier order granting maintenance to the son while upholding the order for the wife and keeping the applicant’s contentions regarding the wife open. The revision application was partly allowed and disposed of.
Issues considered
- Whether an adult son who is employed and earning a salary is entitled to maintenance under the Family Court order
- Whether the earlier order granting maintenance to the son should be set aside
Subjects
- maintenance
- revision
- Family Court
- adult son
- quash order
- criminal appellate jurisdiction
Judgment
41-REVN-282-2022 (CR).doc
Shubhada S Kadam
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 282 OF 2022
Vasant Bhaskar Vispute ...Applicant/s
Versus
Ashwini Vasant Vispute and anr. ...Respondent/s
_________________________________________________________________
Mr. A. S. Chandak i/b. Ms. Indrayani Patani and Ms. Niraja Patani (Joshi),
Advocate for Applicant.
None for the respondents.
_________________________________________________________________
CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.
DATE : 31st AUGUST, 2026.
P.C. :
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant. None for the
respondents.
2. Learned counsel for the applicant, on instructions, seeks to
withdraw the application insofar as respondent No.1-wife is concerned.
Learned counsel further submitted that, by the impugned order, learned
SHUBHADA Family Court had directed the applicant to pay maintenance to his wife
SHANKAR
KADAM
Digitally signed by
and to his son, who is 24 years old, employed in a digital multi-marketing
SHUBHADA
SHANKAR KADAM
Date: 2026.09.03
12:33:10 +0530
company and drawing a salary of ₹25,000 per month. Learned counsel
submitted that if this Court keeps the contentions of the applicant open
insofar as respondent No.1-wife is concerned, appropriate orders may be
passed by this Court in respect of the son.
Page 1 of 2
41-REVN-282-2022 (CR).doc
Shubhada S Kadam
3. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant. It appears from
the record that the applicant has filed an affidavit dated 11th October
2022 , stating that his son is 24 years old, he is employed in a digital multi-
marketing company and drawing a salary of ₹25,000 per month.
Considering these facts, the son is not entitled to maintenance. Hence, I
pass following order:
ORDER
a) The revision application is partly allowed in respect of the son
of the applicant.
b) The order dated 11th May 2016 in M.A.No. 694 of 2009
passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court Room No.7,
Nashik, in respect of the son of the applicant is quashed and set
aside, as on the date of the order, the son of the applicant was
major.
c) The order in respect of the wife of the applicant is maintained.
d) The contentions of the applicant in respect of the wife are
kept open.
The revision application is disposed of in above terms.
(SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)
Page 2 of 2
Checking your session…