Bombay High Court
KISHAN UTTAM CHAVAN S/O UTTAM SADASHIV CHAVANversusKOMAL KISHAN CHAVAN D/O DILIP ANANTRAO MOHITE
- 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.
Summary
The husband, Kishan Uttam Chavan, appealed a Family Court order granting his wife, Komal Kishan Chavan, maintenance of Rs.10,000 per month, arguing that his temporary employment and lower earnings of Rs.35,000 made the amount excessive. The wife contended that the husband actually earned Rs.76,500 per month, had no permanent source of income, and that she had no independent earnings, making the awarded amount insufficient for her daily needs. The High Court examined the salary evidence, noted the husband’s dependents, and considered the prevailing cost of living and inflation. It concluded that Rs.10,000 was inadequate and increased the maintenance to Rs.13,000 per month payable by the husband to the wife. The Court dismissed the husband’s revision application (Rev 446/2025) and partly allowed the wife’s revision application (Rev 210/2026), ordering payment of arrears and setting a timeline for further deposits.
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 payable by the husband to the wife?
Subjects
- maintenance
- family law
- revision
- cost of living
- inflation
- spousal support
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
KILAJE
SATISH Date:
2026.09.24
KILAJE 14:13:18
+0530
Mr. Manjeet Lotankar i/b. Mr. Shailendra Ghare, Advocate for Applicant in
REVN/446/2025 and for Respondent in REVN/210/2026.
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.