Bombay High Court
NILESH HANUMAN GUPTAversusGEETA NILESH GUPTA NEE. MS. GEETA HARISHCHANDRA GUPTA
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The Court upheld the trial court’s order granting Rs.15,000 monthly maintenance as appropriate based on the parties’ financial circumstances and inflation.
Summary
The petitioner, Vaishali Nilesh Gupta, filed a writ petition challenging a maintenance order of Rs.15,000 per month granted by the 5th Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Panvel, to his wife, Geeta Nilesh Gupta. The petitioner claimed his monthly earnings were only Rs.25,000 from working in his father's grocery shop and asserted he could not afford the ordered amount. The respondent, a qualified mechanical engineer who was unemployed at the time of filing, argued that the petitioner actually earned over Rs.1,00,000 per month and that the maintenance amount was insufficient given inflation. The trial court, after reviewing the petitioner’s bank statements, found his income exceeded Rs.25,000 and deemed Rs.15,000 appropriate. The High Court, after hearing both sides, found no infirmity in the trial court’s reasoning and upheld the maintenance award. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed and the petitioner was directed to clear any arrears within four weeks.
Issues considered
- Whether the maintenance amount of Rs.15,000 per month awarded by the trial court is appropriate given the petitioner’s alleged income and the respondent’s lack of earnings.
- Whether the petitioner’s claim of limited income is credible in light of bank statements indicating higher earnings.
- Whether inflation and the respondent’s unemployment justify the maintenance award.
Subjects
- maintenance
- marital maintenance
- family law
- income assessment
- inflation
- civil procedure
Judgment
7-WP-3133-2026 (C).doc
Tikam
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 3133 OF 2026
VAISHALI Nilesh Hanuman Gupta ...Petitioner/s
ANIL
TIKAM VERSUS
Geeta Nilesh Gupta
Digitally signed
by VAISHALI
Nee. Ms. Geeta Harishchandra Gupta ...Respondent/s
ANIL TIKAM
Date:
2026.09.24
_________________________________________________________________
11:47:08 +0530
Mr. Ashish Anand a/w. Shankar Parab a/w. Gauri Dhale a/w. Sohial
Bombaywala, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr.Abhijit Kadam a/w Ms. Dipali Bandre a/w. Tejas Bandre, Advocate for
Respondent.
_________________________________________________________________
CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.
DATE : 22nd SEPTEMBER, 2026.
P.C. :
1. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and Respondent.
2. The challenge in this Petition is the maintenance of Rs.15,000/-
granted to the Respondent by the 5 th Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division,
Panvel (for short 'the Learned Court').
3. It is contention of learned counsel for the Petitioner that
Petitioner earns Rs.25,000/- per month. The Respondent is well qualified.
She is mechanical engineer. But without considering this fact, the Learned
Trial Court has granted Rs.15,000/- per moth maintenance to the
Respondent, which is on higher side. The Petitioner is unable to pay
Rs.15,000/- as he has no other source of income. The Petitioner works in
Page 1 of 3
7-WP-3133-2026 (C).doc
Tikam
grocery shop of his father. The income of the father cannot be considered
as income of the Petitioner and requested to allow the Petition.
4. It is contention of learned counsel for the Respondent-wife that
the Petitioner runs grocery shop and he earns more than Rs.1,00,000/- per
month. The bank statement of the Petitioner shows his income is more
than Rs.25,000/-. At the time of filing maintenance application,
Respondent was not in service. She needs the amount to maintain herself.
Considering today's inflation rate, the amount of Rs.15,000/- is
inadequate. The Learned Trial Court has passed well reasoned order and
requested to dismiss the petition.
5. I have heard both learned counsel. Perused impugned order
and documents produced on record. The Respondent is mechanical
engineer. But she is not in service and she has no source of income. It is
contention of learned counsel for the Petitioner that Petitioner works in
grocery shop of his father and he earns around Rs.25,000/-. The Learned
Trial Court has observed that the bank statement of the Petitioner shows
that he is earning more than Rs.25,000/-. Considering today's inflation
rate, awarding amount of Rs.15,000/- as maintenance to the Respondent-
wife by the Learned Trial Court is appropriate and I do not find any
infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Learned 5th Joint Civil
Judge, Senior Division, Panvel. In view of above, I pass following order:
Page 2 of 3
7-WP-3133-2026 (C).doc
Tikam
ORDER
(i) Writ Petition is dismissed.
(ii) The Trial Court shall expedite the proceedings.
(iii) The Petitioner shall clear the arrears as early as possible,
preferably within four weeks from receipt of this order.
(iv) Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly.
(SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)
Page 3 of 3
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.