Bombay High Court
ASHWINI NIKHIL DHANAWADEversusNIKHIL RAJENDRA DHANAWADE
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The order rejecting the maintenance application is set aside and the matter is remanded for fresh hearing on its merits.
Summary
The petitioner sought leave to withdraw a writ petition while keeping her maintenance contentions open after her maintenance application was rejected by the 4th Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division Pune. The respondent objected to the withdrawal. The High Court examined the impugned order dated 12/09/2023, which dismissed the maintenance claim on the basis that the petitioner was well qualified and had not produced bank statements. The Court found that the order was not decided on merit and ordered a fresh hearing, quashing the earlier order. The petition was allowed, the maintenance application remanded for fresh hearing within six months, and the writ petition was disposed.
Issues considered
- Whether the order of the 4th Joint Civil Judge rejecting the maintenance application was passed on merit
Subjects
- maintenance
- family law
- writ petition
- remand
- fresh hearing
- quash order
Judgment
13-WP-1729-2026 (C).doc
Tikam
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 1729 OF 2026
VAISHALI Ashwini Nikhil Dhanawade ...Petitioner/s
ANIL Versus
TIKAM Nikhil Rajendra Dhanawade ...Respondent/s
Digitally signed
by VAISHALI ________________________________________________________________
ANIL TIKAM
Date:
2026.09.03 Ms. Snehal B. Mande, Advocate for Petitioner.
11:22:23 +0530
Mr. Prathamesh Bhargude a/w. Mr. Sumit Sonare, Advocate for
Respondent.
_________________________________________________________________
CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.
DATE : 28th AUGUST, 2026.
P.C. :
1. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and Respondent.
2. The Petitioner, on instructions, seeks leave to withdraw the
petition with liberty to keep the contentions of the Petitioner open as
maintenance application of the petitioner is rejected without any
reasonable ground.
3. Learned counsel for the Respondent strongly objected for the
same.
4. I have both learned counsel. Perused impugned order passed
by 4th Joint Civil Judge Senior Division Pune. dated 12/09/2023. By the
said order, the Learned Judge has rejected the maintenance application
filed by the Petitioner on the ground that the Petitioner is well qualified
Page 1 of 2
13-WP-1729-2026 (C).doc
Tikam
and she has not produced bank account statements. Both parties intend to
lead evidence in support of their case, as impugned order was not passed
on merit. Hence, I find it is a fit case to remand back for fresh hearing by
giving opportunity to both the parties and I pass following order:
ORDER
(i) Petition is party allowed.
(ii) The impugned order passed below Exhibits 17 dated
12/09/2023 by the Learned 4th Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division Pune is
quashed and set aside.
(iii) The maintenance application of the Applicant is remanded
back to the Learned Court for fresh hearing by giving opportunity to both
the sides.
(iv) The Learned Judge shall decide the application on its own
merit, preferably within six months after receipt of this order.
(v) Contentions of both the parties are kept open.
(vi) Writ petition is disposed of.
(SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)
Page 2 of 2
Checking your session…