SAGAR NAMDEO GAIKWADversusPADMINI NAMDEO GAIKWAD

                                                       (1)                 3CRIWP213.26.odt




                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                   CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
                                CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                               CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.213 OF 2026

                      Shri Sagar Namdeo Gaikwad                    ]
                      Age 33 years, Occ. – Professional,           ]
                      R/o. Keshav Park, Opp. Kalavati              ]
                      Mandir, Miraj-Malgaon Road, Miraj            ]
                      District – Sangli.                           ]      Petitioner
         Digitally
         signed by
         SHAILAJA
                                                                       (Org. Respondent)
SHAILAJA SHRIKANT                   Versus
SHRIKANT HALKUDE
HALKUDE Date:
         2026.09.29
         12:30:42     Smt. Padmini Namdeo Gaikwad                  ]
         +0530
                      Age 53 years, Occ. House Hold                ]
                      R/o. Near the house of Zareena               ]
                      Soudagar, Alankar Colony, 100 Ft Rd          ]
                      Miraj, Dist. Sangli.                         ]      Respondent

                                                     …..
                      Mr. Padmanabh D. Pise a/w Mr. Prathamesh Patil & Ms. Manjusha
                      Bhosale, Advocates for the Petitioner.
                                                     …..

                                               CORAM         :   ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.
                                                  DATE       :   24th SEPTEMBER, 2026


                      ORAL JUDGMENT:

                      1.            Heard the learned advocate for the Petitioner and perused

                      the record.

                      2.            The Petitioner, being aggrieved by the order dated 13-08-

                      2025 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Sangli, below

                      Exhibit 7 in Petition E-No. 7 of 2023, whereby the Application

                      preferred by the Respondent for interim maintenance came to be
                                                                                           1 of 6
                                  (2)                 3CRIWP213.26.odt




allowed and the Petitioner was directed to pay interim maintenance of

Rs.15,000/- per month to the Respondent, who is his mother, has

preferred this Petition.

3.           It is pertinent to note that the Respondent is the mother of

the Petitioner, and it is she who cared for and brought up the Petitioner

from his childhood until he became a Chartered Accountant. Despite

that, the Respondent had to file an application seeking maintenance

from her son, i.e. the Petitioner. In fact, the Petitioner has an

obligation to take care of, provide for, and maintain his mother. It is to

be noted that no mother will file an application against her son for

maintenance except in extreme exigency. It is also undisputed that the

Petitioner is a Chartered Accountant.

4.           The Respondent-mother filed an application before the

learned Family Court for grant of maintenance from her son. It was

contended that the Petitioner is a Chartered Accountant and earns Rs.

3,00,000/- per month; therefore, she prayed for grant of maintenance

of Rs.25,000/- per month.

5.           The Petitioner appeared in the matter and resisted the

application and contended that he is regularly paying an amount of Rs.

5,000/- per month to the Respondent for household expenses, and she

is also getting rent of Rs. 4,000/-. Therefore, it is contended that the


                                                                    2 of 6
                                   (3)               3CRIWP213.26.odt




Respondent is not entitled to the maintenance claimed and that the

application should be rejected.

6.              The learned Judge of the Family Court, after considering

the material on record, observed that the Petitioner is a Chartered

Accountant. In his affidavit of assets and liabilities, he stated that he

earns Rs. 58,416/- per month and, on that basis, the learned Family

Court granted interim maintenance of Rs.15,000/- per month.

Aggrieved by the same, the Petitioner has preferred this Petition.

7.              The learned Advocate for the Petitioner vehemently

contended that the learned Family Court failed to consider the facts in

their proper perspective and has erred in recording the finding in

paragraph 4 of the impugned order. He further canvassed that the

Petitioner is paying Rs. 5,000/- per month to the Respondent, and the

Respondent is also receiving rent of Rs. 4,000/-. The Petitioner has

also availed a home loan and is required to pay installments of Rs.

40,000/- to Rs. 45,000/- as EMI. He spends Rs.15,000/- to Rs.

20,000/- on his wife and children’s medical expenses. Therefore,

submitted that the amount awarded by the learned Family Court is

exorbitant and excessive. As such, he urged that the impugned order

be set aside.




                                                                     3 of 6
                                  (4)                3CRIWP213.26.odt




8.           Though during the argument, he propounded that the

Petitioner is not shying away from maintaining his mother, he still

submitted that the maintenance granted by the learned Family Court is

exorbitant and urged for setting aside the impugned order.

9.           Having considered his submission and perusal of the

impugned order and record, at the outset, it appears that the Petitioner

is the son of the Respondent. Therefore, the Petitioner is obligated to

take care of, provide for, and maintain his mother as per his status.

10.          It is worth noting that Section 125 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “Cr. P.C.”) is a social welfare

provision which must be subjected to an extensive beneficial concern,

and this understanding has been extended to maintenance. Similarly, it

must be borne in mind that the right of maintenance under Section 125

of the Cr. P. C. is not a benefit received by the mother from his son,

but rather the legal or moral duty owed by the son to maintain his

mother. Undisputedly, the Petitioner is not maintaining his mother and

not providing sufficient means. This fact itself is sufficient to award

the maintenance to the Respondent-mother.

11.          Besides, the judicial note can be taken that there is a rise

in the prices of the essential commodities and therefore the


                                                                    4 of 6
                                  (5)                3CRIWP213.26.odt




maintenance amount granted to the Respondent appears to be too

meagre to satisfy her daily needs.

12.          Apart from this, it is an obligation of the son to maintain

his mother. He cannot be permitted to plead that he is unable to

maintain her due to financial constraints as long as he is capable of

earning. Furthermore, the learned Advocate for the Petitioner though

argued at length to justify the defence, failed to point out that the

Petitioner does not have sufficient income to maintain his mother. On

the contrary, it has come on record that the Petitioner is a Chartered

Accountant and also availed a home loan, and according to him, he

pays EMI of Rs.40,000/- to Rs.45,000/- which itself indicates that he

has sufficient means of income; else the bank would not have

disbursed the loan to pay the EMI of Rs. 40,000/- to Rs. 45,000/-.

Those facts themselves denote that the Petitioner has not come to the

Court with clean hands but has suppressed his actual income from the

learned Family Court, while filing the affidavit of assets and

liabilities. Therefore, in my view, it would be appropriate to saddle

him with costs for not disclosing his actual income in the affidavit and

thereby trying to mislead the Court on this point, and also to abuse the

process of the Court by filing such a Petition without having any grounds

but only with a view to depriving his mother of getting maintenance and

thereby consuming the Court’s valuable time.
                                                                   5 of 6
                                    (6)                    3CRIWP213.26.odt




13.             Thus, considering the above discussion, it appears that the

order passed by the learned Judge, Family Court is just and proper and

no interference is warranted in it in the writ petition. On the contrary,

it seems that the Petitioner has abused the process of law by failing to

disclose his actual income in the affidavit of assets and liabilities

before the learned Family Court. Therefore, in my view, it would be

appropriate to impose costs on the Petitioner.

14.             Consequently, the writ petition being bereft of merit,

stands dismissed with costs of Rs. 20,000/-.

15.             The Petitioner is directed to pay costs to the Respondent

or deposit the same in the Family Court, Sangli within four weeks

from today, failing which, his right to proceed with the matter before

the learned Family Court shall stand forfeited. It is made clear that no

further time will be granted to pay/deposit the said costs.

16.             The Petition is disposed of accordingly.




                                           [ABHAY J. MANTRI, J. ]




VishalK/3CRIWP213.26.odt




                                                                       6 of 6