Bombay High Court
SNEHAL CHANDRASHEKAR JANGDEversusCHANDRASHEKHAR ARVIND JANGDE
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The appellate court quashed the Family Court’s order rejecting interim maintenance and remanded the matter for a fresh hearing on merits.
Summary
The petitioner, Snehal Chandrashekar Jangde, filed a writ petition challenging the Family Court's order dated 10 April 2025 that rejected her application for interim maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The petitioner claimed a modest income of ₹4,000 per month and expenses of ₹80,500, while alleging the husband earned ₹2,90,000 per month. The Family Court dismissed the application on the basis that the petitioner had not produced satisfactory income documents and that no one was dependent on her. The High Court observed that the lower court decided on assumptions without a proper merits hearing and therefore quashed the order, remanding the case for a fresh hearing. The appellate court directed the Family Court to hear the interim maintenance application afresh, give both parties an opportunity to be heard, and decide it on its merits at the earliest.
Issues considered
- The petitioner’s entitlement to interim maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act.
- Whether the Family Court erred in rejecting the application on the ground of insufficient income proof.
- Whether the lower court’s reliance on assumptions violated principles of natural justice and the guidelines in Rajnesh v. Neha.
- Whether the order should be set aside and the matter remanded for fresh hearing.
Legislation cited
- Hindu Marriage Act — s. 24
Subjects
- interim maintenance
- Hindu Marriage Act
- Section 24
- family court
- quash order
- remand
- income proof
- affidavit
- maintenance application
Judgment
4-WP-16211-2025 (C).doc
Shubhada S Kadam
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 16211 OF 2025
Snehal Chandrashekar Jangde ...Petitioner/s
Versus
Chandrashekhar Arvind Jangde ...Respondent/s
_________________________________________________________________
Mr. Mateen Shaikh along with Mr. Bharat Borkar, Mr. Hassan Siddiqui and
Ms. Muskan Shaikh, Advocate for Petitioner.
Ms. Arzoo Yasin Mujawar, Advocate for the Respondent (through VC).
_________________________________________________________________
CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.
DATE : 31st AUGUST, 2026.
P.C. :
1. The challenge in this petition is to the impugned order dated
10th April 2025, passed below Exhibit-21 in Petition No.A-2119 of 2021 by
learned Judge, Family Court No.3, Pune, whereby the application filed by
the petitioner under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act for interim
maintenance is rejected.
2. It is contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the
respondent-husband earns a salary of ₹2,90,000/- per month. The
SHUBHADA petitioner had candidly mentioned in her maintenance application that she
SHANKAR
KADAM was working as a teacher and earning ₹4,000/- per month but had
Digitally signed by
SHUBHADA
SHANKAR KADAM monthly expenses of ₹20,000/- for house rent, ₹1,500/- for electricity
Date: 2026.09.03
12:10:48 +0530
bills, ₹30,000/- for grocery, fruits, and vegetables, ₹15,000/- for medical
Page 1 of 4
4-WP-16211-2025 (C).doc
Shubhada S Kadam
and travel expenses, ₹4,000/- for maid, and ₹15,000/- for other essential
needs, totalling to ₹80,500/- per month. The petitioner claimed
maintenance on the said grounds. However, learned Judge rejected the
maintenance application on the ground that the petitioner might be
earning more than ₹4,000/- from her teaching profession and that no one
is dependent on the petitioner, whereas the respondent is maintaining the
daughter. Learned counsel submitted that the impugned order is
erroneous, and requested to allow the petition.
3. It is contention of learned counsel for the respondent-husband
that the petitioner is well qualified, she is engaged in teaching profession
and earns a handsome amount therefrom. The petitioner has filed affidavit
of assets and liabilities but without annexing relevant documents and has
not provided correct details in her affidavit. Learned Judge has passed a
well-reasoned order and no interference is required in it, and requested to
dismiss the petition.
4. I have heard both learned counsel, perused the impugned order.
It is the petitioner's claim that the respondent-husband earns ₹2,90,000/-
per month, whereas it is the respondent-husband's claim that the petitioner
wife is well qualified and earns a handsome amount from her teaching
profession. While rejecting the maintenance application, learned Judge
Page 2 of 4
4-WP-16211-2025 (C).doc
Shubhada S Kadam
observed that the petitioner has not produced any document regarding her
income, as per the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Rajnesh v. Neha and anr. (2021) 2 SCC 324.
5. It is not convincing that the petitioner is earning only ₹4,000/-
per month from her teaching profession. The affidavit of the petitioner
reflects that the respondent is earning ₹1,63,624/- per month. However, it
cannot be ignored that the respondent is maintaining the daughter,
whereas no one is dependent on the petitioner. Learned Judge has further
observed that the petitioner neither signed the application at Exhibit-21
nor disclosed her income correctly in her affidavit of assets and liabilities
and, in such circumstances, she is not entitled to interim maintenance. On
that ground, the learned Judge has rejected the interim maintenance
application.
6. In my view, the learned Judge, ought to have decided the
application on merits. However, the learned Judge has passed the order on
the basis of assumptions. I find this to be a fit case to remand the
application filed by the petitioner for interim maintenance for fresh
hearing, after giving an opportunity of hearing to both parties.
Page 3 of 4
4-WP-16211-2025 (C).doc
Shubhada S Kadam
7. In view of the above, I pass following order:
ORDER
a) The petition is partly allowed.
b) The impugned order dated 10th April 2025, passed below
Exhibit-21 in Petition No.A-2119 of 2021 by learned Judge,
Family Court No.3, Pune, is quashed and set aside.
c) The matter is remanded back to the Family Court for fresh
hearing.
d) The learned Family Judge shall hear the interim maintenance
application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act of the
petitioner afresh by giving an opportunity of hearing to both
parties, and shall decide the same on its own merits.
e) The learned Judge shall decide the application as early as
possible.
The petition stands disposed of in above terms.
(SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)
Page 4 of 4
Checking your session…