ARVIND SHRIPATRAO PATILversusSEEMA ARVIND PATIL

2026:BHC-AUG:34661




                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                   BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                        925 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1140 OF 2026

                                   ARVIND SHRIPATRAO PATIL
                                             VERSUS
                                     SEEMA ARVIND PATIL
                                               ...
           Mr. Gaurav L. Deshpande, Advocate for the Petitioner

                                                     CORAM : R. M. JOSHI, J.
                                                     DATED    : 6th AUGUST, 2026

           PER COURT :-


           1.    This petition takes exception to the order dated 18.02.2026 passed by

           the learned Family Court, Nanded in Petition E-22/2025, rejecting the

           application filed by the Petitioner for invoking the provisions of Section 215

           read with Section 379 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (for short,

           ‘BNSS’), 2023.


           2.    The facts which led to the filing of the petition indicate that the

           Respondent/wife of the Petitioner preferred proceedings under Section 144 of

           the BNSS for seeking maintenance, and the said proceeding bearing Petition

           No. E-22/2025 is pending before the Family Court. Interim maintenance was

           also sought therein. It is the case of the Petitioner that while filing the

           affidavit of disclosure of assets and liabilities, as contemplated by the

           judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajnesh V. Neha and

           925 WP 1140.2026.odt                                                    1 of 4
Ors., MANU/SC/0833/2020, the Respondent/wife was duty-bound to disclose

all the properties and, in the instant case, she has failed to disclose the gift

deed executed by her mother in her favour. Thus, it is contended that this

amounts to suppression of facts and, hence, action under Section 215 read

with Section 379 of the BNSS is necessitated. Since the said application is

rejected by the learned Family Court, the present petition has been filed.


3.    Learned Advocate for the Petitioner submits that the Respondent has

not disclosed the fact of receiving immovable property by way of a gift deed

executed by her mother in her favour. This, according to him, amounts to

suppression of fact and, therefore, constitutes an offence against public

justice. It is his submission that the format provided for filing the affidavit is

sufficiently clear so as to include even the property received by way of gift. It

is his submission that the whole intention of filing the affidavit of assets and

liabilities is to enable the Court to pass an appropriate order of maintenance.

According to him, in view of the admitted fact that the said disclosure was not

made, the Family Court has committed an error in passing the impugned

order rejecting the application filed by the Petitioner.


4.    There cannot be any dispute with regard to the proposition sought to be

canvassed by the learned Advocate for the Petitioner that the whole

endeavour behind obtaining affidavits from rival parties is to ascertain their


925 WP 1140.2026.odt                                                         2 of 4
financial status, taking into consideration the assets and liabilities. At the

same time, if the said format is perused, it only deals with the self-acquired

property or the property jointly held in the name of the rival parties. Apart

from this, as it appears from the impugned order, the Respondent/wife has

explained the circumstances in which the said disclosure was not made. The

learned Judge of the Family Court, by taking into consideration the

contentions of both sides, has recorded the following findings:

      “3. The respondent in the reply/say Exh. 13 filed to the main
      petition itself stated that, proceeding under P.W.D.V. Act is filed by
      daughter-in-law of the mother of the petitioner before Judicial
      Magistrate F.C. Bhokar which is pending against the petitioner and
      her mother; and in order to defeat right to maintenance and right
      to residence of the daughter-in-law of the mother of the petitioner,
      the mother of the petitioner has gifted the house in the name of
      the petitioner. Same is the contention of the petitioner in the say
      filed to present application that the gift deed is executed by her
      mother in her favour only to save it (being claimed by her sister in
      law (brother’s widow as shelter house or share in it). Thus, there
      is a substance in contention of the respondent that in order to
      avoid said house from the daughter-in-law of her mother, her
      mother has executed the gift deed but actual beneficiary still is her
      mother. Even otherwise the said house as actually in occupation of
      the mother of the petitioner and the petitioner has taken only
      shelter in the said house after the respondent compelled her to
      leave the matrimonial house.

      4.      Therefore, in my view when the petitioner is nominal owner
      of the house gifted to her by her mother on 24/07/2022, her
      failure to disclose said house as her property in the Affidavit of
      Assets and Liabilities Exh. 20 cannot be considered as false
      statement. Of course, the act of the petitioner in not disclosing
      said house in her name by way of gift by her mother, cannot be
      justified but said act is not sufficient to make inquiry under
      Section 379 of BNSS and to lodge the complain against her for

925 WP 1140.2026.odt                                                       3 of 4
       making false statement. Further, as per Section 379 of B.N.S.S.
       lays down that if the court is of opinion that it is expedient in the
       interest of justice that inquiry should be made into any offence
       referred in clause (b) of Sub-Section (1) of the Section 215 of
       BNSS which appears to be committed then the court may inquire
       and file the complaint.”


5.    The observations made by the learned Family Court are in consonance

with the material on record and thus cannot be called perverse so as to call for

interference therein. In any case, the proceedings which are penal in nature

could be initiated against the parties if it is found that there is deliberate non-

disclosure of any information. Apart from the fact that there is a satisfactory

explanation provided by the Respondent for non-inclusion of the gift in the

affidavit of assets and liabilities, the format of assets and liabilities also is not

clear so as to attribute any deliberate or intentional omission on the part of

the Respondent to suppress material facts. Consequently, this Court finds no

justification for causing interference in the order impugned. Hence, the

petition stands dismissed.


                                                         ( R. M. JOSHI, J.)
ssp




925 WP 1140.2026.odt                                                           4 of 4