SUNIL VISHNU DESAIversusSAKSHI SUNIL DESAI AND ANR

                                                                       4-WP-36-2023 @.doc



                                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                           CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                               WRIT PETITION NO. 36 OF 2023

                      Mr. Sunil Vishnu Desai
                      Aged : 60 years, Occ: Consultant
                      Indian Inhabitant, Residing at Shree Mahesh CHS,
SNEHA                 A-2 Wing, Block No.11, Devi Chowk, Shastri
NITIN                                                                  ...Petitioner
CHAVAN                Nagar, Dombivali (W), District – Thane
Digitally signed by
SNEHA NITIN
CHAVAN
Date: 2026.07.13                      Versus
11:02:08 +0530


                      1. Mrs. Sakshi Sunil Desai
                      Aged 50 years, Occ: House maker

                      2. Samruddhi Sunil Desai
                      (Respondent No.2 being minor shall be
                      represented by her month i.e. Respondent No.1)
                      both residing at c/o Ashish Rane, 20 Padmashree
                      Mention, 2nd floor, Dr. B.A. Road, Lalbaug,
                      Mumbai – 400012.
                                                                            ...Respondents
                      3. The State of Maharashtra,
                      through Public Prosecutor, Mumbai

                                                        ****
                      Ms. Veermalla Gopal for the Petitioner.
                      Ms. Shazia Bano Mohd. Shoeb (Through Legal Aid) for Respondent Nos.
                      1 and 2.
                      Ms. Manish Tidke, APP for the Respondent/State.
                                                        ****

                                                    CORAM :    M.M. SATHAYE, J.
                                                      DATE :   10th JULY, 2026

                      P.C. :


                      1.             Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by
                      consent of learned Counsel for the parties. Perused the record.




                      Sneha Chavan                                                          1
                                                   4-WP-36-2023 @.doc



2.             This is yet another unfortunate dispute between husband and
wife. The Petitioner/husband is about 63 years old and Respondent
No.1/ wife is about 53 years old, Respondent No.2 is a daughter born
from the wedlock who is presently about 15 years old.


3.             The Petitioner is challenging an order dated 18.03.2021
passed by the Family Court-2, Bandra, Mumbai in Petition No. E-
188/2014, by which the Petitioner is directed to pay maintenance of
Rs.15,000/- per month to wife and Rs.8,000/- per month to the
daughter under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
(‘CrPC’ for short). Incidentally, by the same common judgment, the
claim of Respondent No.1/wife for restitution of conjugal rights is
allowed. However, the decision on restitution of conjugal rights is not
subject matter of this petition.


4.             Learned Counsel for the Petitioner/husband submitted that
Petitioner did not enter witness box. That though a pay slip of April
2019 is produced before the Family Court at the instance of Respondent
No.1/wife, immediately in May 2019, the Petitioner has resigned from
the job, which resignation was accepted. A copy of letter dated
03.05.2019 issued by the Petitioner’s employer is placed on record
which indicates that the resignation has been accepted. It appears from
the impugned order that this fact of resignation has not been brought
on record of the Family Court.


5.             Learned Counsel for the Petitioner/husband further submitted
that after resignation, the Petitioner is presently working as a consultant
and he is earning about Rs.30,000/- to Rs.35,000/- per month.
According to the averments in the petition, he is earning about


Sneha Chavan                                                            2
                                                     4-WP-36-2023 @.doc



Rs.20,000/- to Rs.25,000/- per month. It is submitted that consulting
practice does not generate fix income but it fluctuates. It is submitted
that the Petitioner is 63 years old and he is regularly paying the
maintenance for Respondent No.2/daughter. Attention of the Court is
also invited to the copies of LIC policies bought in the name of
Respondent No.2/daughter by the Petitioner. It is submitted that the
Respondent No.1/wife was earning by working in patpedhi. It is also
submitted that the Petitioner himself is suffering from medical issues. It
is submitted that considering his age, present income and his own
medical issues, the amount granted under impugned order is excessive.
It is further submitted that after the order of restitution of conjugal
rights, Respondent No.1/wife has not come back to cohabit with the
Petitioner.


6.             On the other hand, learned Counsel for the Respondent Nos.
1/wife supported the impugned order contending inter alia that the
Petitioner husband had filed affidavit of evidence, but he chose to
remain absent and chose not to further enter witness box. It is
submitted that wife has been cross-examined. She submitted that after
impugned order, an effort was made to return to the matrimonial house,
but because the Petitioner’s sister was present in the house, the wife was
not permitted to enter.


7.             It appears that it has resulted into cross police complaint/NCs
against each other.


8.             Learned counsel for the Respondent No. 1/wife further
submitted that merely because the Petitioner has resigned from the
company, he is not absolved of the liability to pay maintenance. She


Sneha Chavan                                                              3
                                                    4-WP-36-2023 @.doc



contended that considering the quantum awarded in the impugned
order, interference is not required. She relied on judgments of Bhuwan
Mohan Singh v/s. Meena and Ors.-2014 Cri. L.J. 3979 and Sandeep
Kumrawat v/s. Antima Kumrawat-AIR OnLine 2023 MP 1579, in
support of her case.


9.             I have considered the rival submissions and perused the
record. There is no dispute about law laid down in above judgments
relied by the Respondent/wife. However, due to nature of dispute, it has
to be decided in the facts and circumstances of this case.


10.            It appears that the parties got married late in their age, in
April 2010, and after birth of Respondent No.2/daughter, Respondent
No.1/wife has left matrimonial house in November 2011. It has been
over 15 years since then. It has come on record that Respondent
No.1/wife has admitted that at the time of marriage, she knew that her
husband is living with his mother, brother and father. It appears that
subsequent presence of husband’s sister in the matrimonial home
created discord between Respondent No.1/wife and matrimonial family.
In fact, learned Judge of the Family Court has held that the sister of the
Petitioner has polluted the atmosphere of the matrimonial home.
Though, it is true that pay slip of Petitioner was on record, based on
which, the amount of maintenance has been arrived at, it is equally true
and not disputed that the necessary disclosure affidavits were not filed
by the parties (both by husband and wife).


11.            The Petitioner/husband has filed affidavit of assets and
liabilities dated 27.08.2022 in this Court, where according to the
Petitioner, his income is about Rs.20,000/- to Rs.25,000/- and his


Sneha Chavan                                                             4
                                                    4-WP-36-2023 @.doc



monthly expenses are about Rs.30,000/-. Respondent No.1 wife has not
filed any disclosure affidavit in this Court.


12.            It is neither shown to the Court nor it appears from the
impugned order, what was the exact reason for the Petitioner husband
to resign from the company. Merely because the Petitioner has resigned
or retired, the liability to maintain dependent wife and child does not
go away. The fact that Respondent No.1 wife has filed application for
restitution of conjugal rights is sufficient to indicate that Respondent
No.1 herself wanted to join the company of Respondent. However, from
March 2021 when the restitution was ordered, till today, apart from an
effort in around May 2022, nothing is brought on record to show what
steps Respondent No.1 took to cohabit or join company of the Petitioner.


13.            Two LIC policies are produced on record, already purchased in
the name of Respondent No. 2 daughter, of Rs. 10 Lakh total. Record
shows that Respondent No. 1/wife has been permitted to withdraw
amount of Rs. 5,43,000/- (deposited by Petitioner/husband) with
interest during pendency of the petition.


14.            In the aforesaid circumstances, there is no question of
interfering in the amount of maintenance granted for the daughter or in
the date from which Petitioner is directed to pay.


15.            However, considering the advanced age of the parties, a
possibility of even the Petitioner husband requiring money towards his
own medical expenses cannot be ruled out. It is also a matter of fact
that the Petitioner has resigned from the job, but said fact was not
brought before the Family Court and the amount is decided without


Sneha Chavan                                                             5
                                                     4-WP-36-2023 @.doc



disclosure affidavits on record.


16.            Considering the overall circumstances of the case and
advanced age of the parties, I do not find it appropriate to relegate
them back to the Family Court for fresh round of litigation against each
other.


17.            In that view of the matter, taking cognizance of the subsequent
event, in my considered overall view, the amount of maintenance
granted to Respondent No.1 wife of Rs.15,000/- per month requires
partial interference and requires reduction.


18.            The Petition is therefore partially allowed and Rule is made
partially absolute as under :
                   (A) Clause (2) of the impugned order is modified and
                   Petitioner is directed to pay Rs.10,000/- per month to
                   Respondent No.1-wife and Rs.8,000/- per month to
                   Respondent No.2-daughter from 17.05.2014.
                   (B) Considering the admitted position that the Petitioner
                   has not cleared the pending arrears as on today, the
                   Petitioner is directed to pay to the Respondents the entire
                   arrears, as per modified amount, within a period of 6
                   weeks from today.
19.            The petition is disposed of in the above terms. No order as to
costs.


20.            All concerned to act on duly authenticated or digitally signed
copy of this order.
                                             (M.M. SATHAYE, J.)


Sneha Chavan                                                              6