Bombay High Court
RUPALI CHETAN MASURKARversusCHETAN GAJANANRAO MASURKAR
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The High Court held that the Family Court erred in presuming the petitioner deliberately left her job and must rehear the maintenance application on its merits.
Summary
The petitioner, Rupali Chetan Masurkar, filed a writ petition challenging the Family Court, Pune's order rejecting her maintenance application on the basis that she allegedly left her job to claim maintenance. The petitioner argued that she was unemployed at the time of filing and that the court erred in presuming deliberate abandonment of employment, also highlighting the respondent's higher income. The respondent contended that the petitioner had a steady income from various employments and that the Family Court's decision was well‑reasoned. The High Court observed that the Family Court had relied on an unfounded assumption without proper documentary evidence and therefore erred in its judgment. Consequently, the High Court allowed the petition, quashed the impugned order, and remanded the matter to the Family Court for a fresh hearing with directions to consider the application on its merits and to file requisite documents.
Issues considered
- Whether the Family Court erred in presuming that the petitioner deliberately left her employment to claim maintenance
- Whether the petitioner’s lack of income at the time of filing warrants a fresh consideration of the maintenance claim
- Whether the Family Court complied with procedural requirements of documentary evidence in maintenance applications
Subjects
- maintenance
- family court
- presumption
- employment
- quash order
- remand
- fresh hearing
- matrimonial dispute
Judgment
5-WP-12054-2025 (C).doc
N.S.Kamble
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 12054 OF 2025
Rupali Chetan Masurkar ...Petitioner
Versus
Chetan Gajananrao Masurkar ...Respondent
____________________________________________________________
Digitally signed
by NILAM
Mr.Shivraj Kunchge, for the Petitioner.
NILAM SANTOSH
SANTOSH KAMBLE Mr.Mehul Rathod i/b M/s.KVT Legal, for the Respondent.
KAMBLE Date:
2026.09.17 ____________________________________________________________
10:14:56 +0530
CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.
DATE : 10th SEPTEMBER 2026
P.C. :
. The challenge in this Petition is to the impugned order passed by
learned Family Court, Pune, whereby maintenance Application of the
Petitioner is rejected.
2. It is contention of the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the
learned Family Court has rejected the maintenance Application of the
Petitioner on the ground that the Petitioner has having higher educational
qualification. It is submitted that the observations of learned Judge that
Petitioner was earlier employed and in order to claim maintenance from
Respondent-Husband, she left her job and thereafter, sought maintenance, it
is erroneous.
3. The learned counsel further submitted that the Respondent-
Page 1 of 3
5-WP-12054-2025 (C).doc
N.S.Kamble
Husband working at Tata Motors Company as Deputy General Manger and
get the salary of Rs.2,50,000/- per month, whereas the Petitioner-wife has
no source of income. However, this fact has not been considered by the
learned Judge and passed impugned order, which is erroneous and requested
to allow the Petition.
4. The learned counsel for the Respondent-Husband submitted that
the Petitioner wife holds a degree in B. Pharma and was working in a
company and getting salary of Rs.12,141/- per month. Thereafter, she
switched the company and getting salary of Rs.16,500/- per month and
subsequently, her service certificate shows that her gross salary was
Rs.36,180/-. The learned counsel further submitted that the Petitioner-Wife
has a sufficient source of income. The learned Family Judge has passed a
well reasoned order and no interference is required in it and requested to
dismiss the Petition.
5. I have heard both learned counsel. Perused impugned order.
6. While rejecting the maintenance Application of the Petitioner,
the learned Judge has observed that the Petitioner-wife had left the job in
order to claim maintenance. Moreover, she had not produced documents on
record before Family Court as required by law, on that ground, the learned
Family Judge has rejected the maintenance Application. In my view, the
Page 2 of 3
5-WP-12054-2025 (C).doc
N.S.Kamble
learned Judge ought to have considered the fact that, at the time of filing of
the maintenance application, the Petitioner-wife was jobless. The learned
Judge presumed that Petitioner-wife had deliberately left her job in order to
claim maintenance, it is erroneous. The learned Judge ought to have
decided the Application on its own merit instead of proceeding on the basis
of an assumptions. In such circumstances, I find this is a fit case to remand
the matter for fresh hearing and I pass following order.
ORDER
(i) The Petition is allowed.
(ii) The impugned order dated 20th January 2025, passed
by the Family Court, Pune below Exhibit-13 in Marriage
Petition No.1758 of 2021 is quashed and set aside.
(iii) The matter is remanded back to Family Court, Pune
for fresh hearing by giving an opportunity to both the parties.
(iv) The learned Judge shall decide the maintenance
Application as early as possible, preferably within six months,
from the receipt of this order.
(v) Both the parties shall file documents as required by
law.
(vi) The Criminal Application is disposed of.
(SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)
Page 3 of 3
Checking your session…