Bombay High Court
HEMANT SURESH KADAM AND ANRversusDEEPALI HEMANT KADAM AND ANR
- Decided
- Disposal
- Dismissed
- Bench
- MADHAV JAMDAR
Holding
The High Court held that there is no ground for interference and the impugned maintenance orders stand.
Summary
The petitioners, Hemant Suresh Kadam and Suresh Ganpat Kadam, filed a writ petition under Article 227 challenging a maintenance order directing Rs 30,000 per month for their children and Rs 12,000 for rent, originally ordered by a Judicial Magistrate and affirmed by an Additional Sessions Judge. The appellate court had relied on the petitioner's affidavit showing a monthly income of Rs 14,000 against monthly expenses of Rs 39,000, but also noted his ownership of two immovable properties, share‑market investments, and a car loan. The High Court examined whether the appellate court erred in upholding the maintenance order given the petitioner's assets and whether the writ jurisdiction was appropriate. It concluded that the appellate court’s findings were reasonable and that no interference was warranted under Article 227. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed and any interim protection vacated.
Issues considered
- Whether the maintenance order dated 12 August 2022 and its confirmation on 31 January 2024 are legally valid and can be challenged under Article 227 of the Constitution.
- Whether the appellate court erred in affirming the maintenance order despite the petitioner's declared assets and income.
- Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to interfere with the lower courts' orders in a maintenance matter.
Subjects
- maintenance
- Article 227
- writ petition
- criminal appellate jurisdiction
- income and assets
- family law
Judgment
19-WP-3074-2024.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 3074 OF 2024
1. Hemant Suresh Kadam
2. Suresh Ganpat Kadam …Petitioners
Digitally
Versus
signed by
SHRADDHA
SHRADDHA KAMLESH
KAMLESH TALEKAR
1. Deepali Hemant Kadam
TALEKAR Date:
2026.02.09
20:43:04
+0530
2. The State of Maharashtra …Respondents
Mr.Nikhil Wadikar a/w. Mr. Parth Katria i/b Nandu Vishnu
Pawar, for Petitioners.
Mr. Ajinkya M Udane, for Respondent No. 1.
Mr. R.V. Newton, APP for Respondent No. 2-State.
CORAM : MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.
Date : 6th February, 2026
PC :
1. Heard Mr. Wadikar, Learned Counsel appearing for the
Petitioners, Mr. Udane, Learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No. 1
and Ms. Newton, Learned APP for the State.
2. By the present Writ Petition filed in the Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, the challenge is to the legality and validity of order
dated 12th August, 2022 passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate, First
Class, A.C. Court, Pune below Exhibit 5 in Criminal Miscellaneous
Application No.3745 of 2021, as also, the Order dated 31 st January,
Page 1 of 3
6th February, 2026
Shraddha
19-WP-3074-2024.doc
2024 passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pune in Criminal
Appeal No. 278 of 2022 (“Impugned Orders”).
3. By the Impugned Order dated 12 th August, 2022 passed by the
Learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, A.C. Court, Pune, Rs. 30,000/-
has been directed to be paid as maintenance to the children and Rs.
12,000/- has been directed to be paid towards rent. The said order has
been confirmed by the Impugned Order dated 31 st January, 2024 passed
by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pune in Criminal Appeal No.
278 of 2022. The Learned Appellate Court has observed that as per the
affidavit of assets and liabilities filed by the Petitioner-Husband, he has
stated that his monthly expenses are Rs.39,000/- and his monthly
income is Rs.14,000/-.
4. The Learned Trial Court has recorded that the Petitioner is an
investor in the share market and advisor in share market investments.
He is having two immovable properties which are self acquired. One is
flat and another is shop. He is also paying installment of car loan. Thus,
in these circumstances, the Appellate Court has recorded that although
he has shown his income as Rs. 14,000/- per month, he is paying salary
of labours, light bill, maintenance etc. and also having a car. Thus, in the
Page 2 of 3
6th February, 2026
Shraddha
19-WP-3074-2024.doc
facts and circumstances and in view of the conduct of the Petitioner-
Husband which has been recorded in the Impugned Orders, no
interference in the Impugned Orders is warranted in the writ jurisdiction
of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
5. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed.
6. Ad interim protection, if any, shall stand vacated forthwith.
[ MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.]
Page 3 of 3
6th February, 2026
Shraddha
Checking your session…