Bombay High Court
RAMESH KUMAR TAVVAversusDEEPTI RAMESH KUMAR ALIAS DEEPTI ATRI
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The appellate court modified the maintenance order, directing the petitioner to pay Rs.20,000 per month for the daughter and half of her educational expenses.
Summary
The petitioner, a retired Indian Army officer receiving a pension of Rs.80,000 per month, challenged a Family Court order directing him to pay Rs.35,000 monthly maintenance to his wife and 50% of their daughter's educational expenses. The petitioner argued that his wife's salary of Rs.1,68,000 per month and his limited pension should be considered, rendering the order excessive. The respondent contended that the petitioner had voluntarily retired, earned substantial business and rental income, and had not produced income documents, justifying the original maintenance amount. The appellate court noted that the wife has an independent income exceeding the petitioner's pension and that both parents should share child expenses. Consequently, the court reduced the maintenance to Rs.20,000 per month for the daughter and ordered the petitioner to pay half of the educational expenses, while directing the wife to provide access to the child. The writ petition was disposed of.
Issues considered
- Whether the Family Court's maintenance order of Rs.35,000 per month is appropriate given the respondent's higher income and the petitioner's pension.
- Whether the petitioner's alleged business and rental income should be taken into account in determining maintenance.
- Whether the respondent is entitled to half of the daughter's educational and incidental expenses.
Subjects
- maintenance
- pension
- child support
- family law
- writ petition
- civil appellate jurisdiction
Judgment
901-WP-16257-2025 (c).doc
S.S.Kilaje
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 16257 OF 2025
Ramesh Kumar Tavva … Petitioner
VERSUS
Deepti Ramesh Kumar @ Deepti Atri … Respondent
_________________________________________________________________
SONALI
Digitally
signed by
SONALI
SATISH
Mr. Milind A. Ingole a/w. Mr. Rahul Prasad, Ms. Aishwarya Gaikwad,
SATISH KILAJE
KILAJE Date:
2026.09.11
18:16:51
+0530
Ms.Ashwini Datar and Sarath Manari, Advocate for Applicant.
Ms. Shilpa Joshi a/w. Ms. Samidha Ambekar, Ms. Bhagyashree Sawant and
Ms. Sambhavi Bhosle, Advocate for Respondent.
_________________________________________________________________
CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.
DATE : 8th SEPTEMBER, 2026.
P.C. :
1. The challenge in this Writ Petition is to the impugned order
passed by the learned Family Court, Bandra, Mumbai, below Exhibit-6,
whereby the petitioner has directed to pay maintenance of Rs.35,000/- per
month to wife and 50% of the educational and incidental expenses to the
daughter.
2. It is contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that
petitioner has superannuated from the Indian Army w.e.f. 16.02.2022 and
is presently receiving the pension of Rs.80,000/- per month. The
respondent/wife is employed as a Deputy Manager at General Insurance
Corporation of India, having salary around Rs.1,68,000/- which is more
Page 1 of 3
901-WP-16257-2025 (c).doc
S.S.Kilaje
than the petitioner’s monthly income. The daughter residing with the
respondent/wife. The petitioner has other financial liability. But these
facts are not considered by the learned Judge, while passing impugned
order directing the petitioner to pay Rs.35,000/- per month maintenance
to wife and 50% of educational and incidental expenses to the daughter,
which is erroneous. Learned counsel submits that the income of the
respondent/wife ought to have been taken into consideration, therefore,
the impugned order deserves to be set aside and requested to allow the
writ petition.
3. It is contention of learned counsel for the respondent /wife that
petitioner has taken voluntary retirement and he has not superannuated.
The petitioner carrying business and from the said business, he earns
crores of rupees. Though the respondent/wife is employed and receives a
salary but after deductions she receives Rs.48,480/- in hand. She requires
this amount for educational expenses of her daughter. It is submitted that,
in such circumstances it is difficult for her to maintain herself and daughter
in the maintenance amount i.e. Rs.35,000/-. Learned counsel further
submitted that petitioner has not produced documents in respect of his
income. He also receives rental income. The learned Judge has passed
well reasoned order and therefore, no interference is required in it and
requested to dismiss the petition.
Page 2 of 3
901-WP-16257-2025 (c).doc
S.S.Kilaje
4. I have heard both the learned counsel. Perused impugned
order. Admittedly, petitioner is not in service and he survives on his
pension. Whereas the respondent is in service and earns salary of
Rs.1,68,000/- per month which is more than the petitioner. When the
respondent has independent source of income then it is responsibility of
both the parents to bear the expenses of child. Considering this fact, I
pass following order:
ORDER
i. The petitioner/husband shall pay Rs. 20,000/- per month as
maintenance to the daughter from the date of filing of
maintenance application and shall pay half of the
educational expenses of the daughter.
ii. The respondent/wife shall provide access of the daughter to
the petitioner as per the order of the learned Family Court.
5. Writ Petition is disposed of. All pending applications disposed
off.
(SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)
Page 3 of 3
Checking your session…