Bombay High Court
ANIRUDHA ADITYANARAYAN UPADHYAYversusPRABHA ANIRUDHA UPADHYAY
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
- Bench
- MADHAV JAMDAR
Holding
The High Court held that there was no ground to interfere with the Family Court's order and dismissed the writ petition.
Summary
The petitioner, Anirudha Upadhyay, filed a writ petition under Article 227 challenging a Family Court order dated 25 April 2025 that dismissed his wife's application for direction to pay the EMI on a flat and partially allowed her maintenance application by ordering interim maintenance of Rs 5,000 per month for each son. The Family Court noted the wife’s salary as Rs 47,000 and the husband’s earnings as Rs 8,000 per month, despite the husband later claiming he was not earning that amount. The husband contended that he is a diploma holder in Computer Engineering, cares for his 75‑year‑old mother, and therefore has unclean hands in seeking relief. The High Court observed that the husband, being a diploma holder, was not earning a substantial income and was not contributing to household expenses, concluding that the petition lacked merit. Consequently, the Court found no ground to interfere with the Family Court’s order and dismissed the writ petition.
Issues considered
- Whether the Family Court's order directing interim maintenance to the children and dismissing the wife's application for EMI direction is legally valid.
- Whether the petitioner can successfully challenge the Family Court order under Article 227 of the Constitution.
- Whether the petitioner’s claim of low income and caretaker responsibilities affect the maintenance order.
Subjects
- maintenance
- family law
- interim maintenance
- Article 227
- un‑clean hands
- writ petition
Judgment
915-WP-1049-2026.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 1049 OF 2026
Anirudha Adityanarayan Upadhyay …Petitioner
Versus
Prabha Anirudha Upadhyay …Respondent
Digitally
signed by
SHRADDHA
SHRADDHA KAMLESH
KAMLESH TALEKAR
Mr. Vaibhav D. Kadam a/w. Ms. Vedika Bhoir and Mr. Rayyan
TALEKAR Date:
2026.02.09
20:43:03
+0530
Shah, for Petitioner.
None for the Respondent.
CORAM : MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.
Date : 6th February, 2026
PC :
1. Heard Mr. Kadam, learned Counsel appearing for the
Petitioner. Inspite of service, none appears for the Respondent. The
Respondent is also absent.
2. By the present Writ Petition filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, the challenge is to the legality and validity of
Order dated dated 25th April, 2025 passed by the Family Court No. 6,
Mumbai below Exh. 13 and 15 filed in Petition No. A/101355/2018
(“Impugned Order”). The said Exhibit 13 Application was filed by the
Respondent Wife seeking maintenance for herself and two sons. Exhibit
Page 1 of 3
6th February, 2026
Shraddha
915-WP-1049-2026.doc
15 application was filed by the present Petitioner-Husband seeking
direction to the wife to pay EMI of the flat at Titwala.
3. By the Impugned Order, the Learned Judge of the Family
Court dismissed application bearing Exhibit 15 and partly allowed
Exhibit 13 application by directing that Rs. 5,000/- per month be paid as
interim maintenance to each son. Learned Trial Court has observed that
although it is the contention of the Petitioner-Husband that Respondent
is a teacher and her salary is Rs. 67,000/-, however, the documents
produced on record shows that her salary is Rs.47,000/-.
4. The Petitioner has stated before the Learned Trial Court that
he is working as a Clerk and earning Rs.8,000/- per month. It is
admitted position that the Petitioner is a diploma holder in Computer
Engineering.
5. Although, it is the contention of Mr. Kadam, Learned Counsel
appearing for the Petitioner-Husband that presently he is not even
earning said amount of Rs.8,000/-, however, the Petitioner is a diploma
holder in Computer Engineering. The Petitioner, who is present in the
Court, states that he has to look after his old mother of 75 years. On
Page 2 of 3
6th February, 2026
Shraddha
915-WP-1049-2026.doc
perusal of the bank statement of the Petitioner, the Learned Trial Court
has observed that the Petitioner is not contributing towards any of the
expenses and the wife is taking responsibility of maintenance of the
children, their educational expenses as well as paying EMIs.
6. Thus, in the facts and circumstances, the Petitioner has
approached this Court with unclean hands. As the Petitioner is a
diploma holder in Computer Engineering, case made out that the
Petitioner-Husband is not earning anything, cannot be accepted.
7. Accordingly, considering the facts and circumstances, no
interference in the impugned order is warranted. The Petition is
dismissed.
[ MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.]
Page 3 of 3
6th February, 2026
Shraddha
Checking your session…