Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Bombay High Court

VIJAY LAXMAN ALAMversusSWAPNA VIJAY ALAM ALIAS SWAPNA MANIK MOKASHI

Decided
Disposal
Disposed Off

Holding

The court reduced the maintenance to Rs.8,000 per month each for the wife and two daughters, totaling Rs.24,000 per month.

Summary

The petitioner, a senior executive earning Rs.46,561 per month, challenged a Civil Judge's order directing him to pay Rs.30,000 monthly as maintenance to his wife and two daughters. He argued that the amount was excessive given his income and his responsibility to support his aged parents. The court examined the affidavits showing the wife had no independent income and the petitioner’s salary, and noted the original order allocated Rs.10,000 each to the wife and daughters. Considering the petitioner’s financial obligations, the court held that the Rs.30,000 figure was too high and reduced the maintenance to Rs.8,000 each, totaling Rs.24,000 per month. The petition was partly allowed and the revised maintenance order was issued.

Issues considered

  • Whether the maintenance amount of Rs.30,000 per month awarded to the wife and two daughters is appropriate in view of the petitioner's income and other financial responsibilities

Subjects

  • maintenance
  • family law
  • marriage petition
  • Section 125 CrPC
  • financial obligations
  • writ petition

Judgment

                                                                                            63-WP-19126-2024 (C).doc


                              N.S.Kamble


                                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                                   CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                                   WRIT PETITION NO. 19126 OF 2024

                              Vijay Laxman Alam                            ...Petitioner
                              Versus
                              Swapna Vijay Alam Alias Swapna Manik Mokashi ...Respondent
           Digitally signed
NILAM   by NILAM
        SANTOSH
                              ____________________________________________________________
SANTOSH KAMBLE
KAMBLE Date: 2026.09.22
        10:41:46 +0530
                              Mr.Sidheshwar N. Biradar a/w Mr.Omhari B. Fawade, for the Petitioner.
                              ____________________________________________________________
                                                                 CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.
                                                                 DATE           : 16th SEPTEMBER, 2026

                              P.C. :

                              .              The challenge in this Petition is to the order of maintenance

                              granted by the Civil Judge Senior Division, Vadgaon, Maval in Marriage

                              Petition No.121 of 2023 at Exhibit-5 dated 10 th October 2024, whereby the

                              learned Judge has directed the Petitioner to pay monthly maintenance of

                              Rs.30,000/- to the Respondent-wife and two daughters.

                              2.             It is contention of learned counsel for the Petitioner that the

                              Petitioner is working as Senior Executive at Bajaj Allianz and he gets salary

                              of Rs.46,561/- per month and this fact has been admitted by the

                              Respondent in spite of that the learned Judge has awarded maintenance of

                              Rs.10,000/- to the Respondent-wife and Rs.10,000/- per month each for the

                              two daughters, thereby directing the Petitioner to pay total amount of


                                                                  Page 1 of 3
                                                              63-WP-19126-2024 (C).doc


N.S.Kamble


Rs.30,000/- per month. It is further submitted that the Petitioner has the

responsibility of maintaining his aged parents and considering his monthly

income of Rs.46,561/- it is difficult for him to pay maintenance of

Rs.30,000/- and therefore, requested to allow the Petition.

3.           Though Respondent is served.          None present for the

Respondent. Hence, I am deciding this matter on merit.

4.           As per the affidavit filed by the Petitioner and Respondent the

Petitioners affidavit shows that he earns Rs.46561/- as monthly income and

Respondent-wife has no independent source of income and survives on the

income of her father and brother. She is also maintaining her two daughters.

Considering the evidence on record, the learned Judge has directed the

Petitioner to pay maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month each                       to

Respondent-Wife and two daughters.              Thereby making the total

maintenance payable of Rs.30,000/- per month.

5.           I have heard learned counsel for the Petitioner.             Perused

impugned order.

6.           As per record Petitioner’s monthly salary is of Rs.46,561/-. He

has responsibility to maintain his parents. Considering these circumstances

the amount of Rs.30,000/- per month awarded by the learned Judge is on

the higher side. Hence, I deem it appropriate to reduce the maintenance


                                  Page 2 of 3
                                                             63-WP-19126-2024 (C).doc


N.S.Kamble


amount to Rs.8,000/- per month each for the Respondent-wife and for two

daughters, which comes to total of Rs.24,000/- per month.

7.           In view of above, I pass following order.

                                    ORDER

              (i)       The Petition is partly allowed.

              (ii)      The Petitioner shall pay Rs.8,000/- each to

              Respondent-wife and two daughters from the date of filing of

              maintenance application.

              (iii)     All pending Applications are disposed of.



                                                  (SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)




                                    Page 3 of 3


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

Lawyer court records for this case

Associated through the court’s case reference.

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.