Bombay High Court
YOGESH JETHALAL JAINversusMITTAL YOGESH JAIN (GALA) @ MITTAL PRADEEP SANGOI
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The appellate court found no infirmity in the Family Court’s maintenance order and dismissed the writ petition.
Summary
The petitioner challenged a Family Court order that granted Rs.30,000 per month maintenance to the respondent-wife and Rs.20,000 per month to their daughter, along with school fees, alleging that the court had not properly assessed his income and had ignored the respondent's undisclosed earnings. The petitioner argued that the respondent runs a family business and works as a teacher, earning a substantial income, and that he also pays an annual LIC premium for the daughter. The respondent contended that she has no independent source of income and relies on the petitioner, who is a businessman earning crores, and that the lower court’s order was well‑reasoned. The High Court examined the parties’ submissions and the income figures, noting that the petitioner’s assessed income for AY 2023‑24 was Rs.9,93,980 and that the respondent appeared to have no separate income. Finding no infirmity in the Family Court’s reasoning, the Court dismissed the writ petition, leaving the maintenance order intact.
Issues considered
- Whether the Family Court erred in fixing the amount of maintenance without a proper assessment of the petitioner's income.
- Whether the respondent's alleged undisclosed income and employment affect the quantum of maintenance.
- Whether the petitioner's claim of paying an LIC premium for the daughter is relevant to the maintenance determination.
Subjects
- maintenance
- family court
- income assessment
- affidavit of assets and liabilities
- lic premium
- maternity
- writ petition
- appellate jurisdiction
Judgment
7-WP-10038-2025 (C).doc
Tikam
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 10038 OF 2025
Yogesh Jethalal Jain ...Petitioner/s
VERSUS
Mittal Yogesh Jain (gala) @ Mittal Pradeep Sangoi ...Respondent/s
_________________________________________________________________
Mr. Prabha Badane i/by Mr. Prasad Thonse, Advocate for Petitioner.
Ms. Vanshika Mahajan h/f. Preeti Gada, Advocates for Respondent.
_________________________________________________________________
CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.
DATE : 9th SEPTEMBER, 2026.
P.C. :
1. The challenge in this Writ Petition is to the Impugned order
passed by the Family Court, Mumbai granting maintenance of Rs.30,000/-
per month to the Respondent-wife and Rs.20,000/- per month to the
daughter and to pay school fees of daughter till final disposal of the
petition.
2. It is contention of the learned counsel for the Petitioner that,
while passing the impugned order, the Learned Judge has not considered
the exact income of the Petitioner and on the basis of assumption, the
SHUBHADA Learned Judge has awarded maintenance amount, which is erroneous.
SHANKAR
KADAM
Digitally signed by
3. The learned counsel further submitted that the Respondent is
SHUBHADA
SHANKAR KADAM
Date: 2026.09.16
18:47:08 +0530 engaged in running her family business and is also working as teacher in
Page 1 of 3
7-WP-10038-2025 (C).doc
Tikam
kindergarten classes, from which she is earning a substantial income
sufficient to maintain herself. The Respondent-Wife is earning a good
income and regularly filling her income tax returns. However, she has
deliberately failed to disclose the said income in her Affidavit of Assets and
Liabilities. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner is also
paying an annual LIC premium of Rs. 53,000/- towards securing the future
of the daughter. Hence, requested to allow the Petition.
4. It is contention of learned counsel of the Respondent that the
Petitioner is a businessman and proprietor of Yogesh Trading Company
and earns crores of rupees. The Respondent has no independent source of
income and maintaining herself and her 9 years old daughter. The Learned
Judge has passed well reasoned order. No interference is required in it and
requested to dismiss the petition.
5. I have heard both the learned counsel. Perused impugned order
and documents produced on record.
6. While passing the impugned order, the Learned Judge has observed
that the Petitioner is a businessman. His income for the Assessment Year
2023-2024 was Rs.9,93,980/-. On the basis of the income of the Petitioner,
the Learned Judge has passed the impugned order. In my view, it appears
from record that the Respondent has no source of income. She is
maintaining herself and her 9 years' old daughter. Hence, I do not find
Page 2 of 3
7-WP-10038-2025 (C).doc
Tikam
any infirmity in the impugned order passed by Learned Judge and I pass
following order:
ORDER
Writ petition is dismissed.
(SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)
Page 3 of 3
Checking your session…