Bombay High Court
KAMALKISHOR PREMNATH NIMJEversusPRADNYA @ KOMAL KAMALKISHOR NIMJE AND ANR
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The Court set aside the order of Rs 50,000 per month and directed Rs 35,000 per month as interim maintenance.
Summary
The husband challenged an order that increased his interim maintenance liability to Rs 50,000 per month under Section 125 of the CrPC. The revision court had allowed the wife’s revision, disregarding the husband’s claim of lack of service and the wife’s alleged income from bank statements. The High Court noted that the wife was staying with her parents, that her bank credits were irregular, and that the increase was excessive. Considering the ex‑parte hearing, the wife’s medical expenses, and the lack of clarity on why she was not cohabiting, the Court partially set aside the impugned order. It reduced the interim maintenance to Rs 35,000 per month, effective from the date of the original application, and disposed of the writ petition.
Issues considered
- Whether the increase of interim maintenance to Rs 50,000 per month under Section 125 CrPC is justified in the facts of the case.
- Whether the revision court erred by not considering the wife’s bank statements and her residence with parents.
- Whether the ex‑parte hearing and alleged non‑service of notice affect the validity of the revision order.
- Whether a partial reduction of interim maintenance is appropriate.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- interim maintenance
- Section 125 CrPC
- maintenance under CrPC
- ex‑parte hearing
- domestic violence
- high court writ petition
- reduction of maintenance
Judgment
5.cri.wp.4372.2024 @.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Digitally
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
signed by
VINA
VINA ARVIND
ARVIND KHADPE
KHADPE Date:
2026.10.08 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 4372 OF 2024
19:51:35
+0530
Mr. Kamalkishor Premnath Nimje … Petitioner
Age 43 Years, Occupation : Service,
Currently Residing at No.442, 1st Floor,
HRBR Layout, Bangalore – 560 016
Permanently R/at – Plot No.75
Rachna, Keshav Nagar,
Bhandara – 441 904
Versus
1. Mrs. Pradnya @ Komal
Kamalkishor Nimje
Age 37 Years, Occupation : working
R/at. Lahu Pandurang Sutar,
Swami Road, Bhosari,
Pune – 411 039.
2. The State of Maharashtra … Respondents
***
Mr. Akshay Shetty for Petitioner.
Mr. Advait Bhonde for Respondent No.1.
Ms. Sharmila Kaushik, APP for Respondent-State.
***
CORAM : M.M. SATHAYE, J.
DATE : 8 OCTOBER, 2026
P.C. :
1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Learned Counsel for
Respondent No.1 waives service of notice. Taken up for final disposal
by consent of the parties.
2. The Petitioner is the husband and Respondent No.1 is his wife.
The proceedings are arising out of maintenance application filed by
Wife under section 125 of Code of Criminal Proceedings, 1973
(‘CrPC’ for short).
Vina Khadpe 1
5.cri.wp.4372.2024 @.doc
3. By this Petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India, the Petitioner/husband is challenging the order
dated 06.07.2024 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, in
Criminal Revision Petition No.488 of 2022. By the said impugned
order, the revision filed by Respondent No.1/wife, challenging the
order of interim maintenance, was allowed, setting aside order dated
03.03.2022 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pimpri
Court, Pune, below Exh. 5 in Criminal Miscellaneous Application
No.1125 of 2018 and directing Petitioner/husband to pay
Rs.50,000/- per month as an interim maintenance to Respondent
No.1-wife from the date of Application (27.11.2018). The Magistrate
had granted maintenance of Rs.7000/- per month from the date of
Application, which is increased to Rs. 50,000/- per month under
impugned order.
4. The marriage took place in September 2007 and it appears that
the dispute started sometime in December, 2017, i.e., after 10 years
of married life.
5. According to Respondent No.1/wife, she was required to take
shelter in her parents’ house at Bhosari, Pune and the
Petitioner/husband has not provided for her maintenance thereafter.
According to the Petitioner/husband, Respondent No.1 / wife is not
staying with him without sufficient reason and she had refused to
accompany him when he decided to shift from Navi Mumbai to
Bhandara.
6. The Petitioner/husband, at the time of filing of the
Vina Khadpe 2
5.cri.wp.4372.2024 @.doc
maintenance Application, was serving at Mumbai and he is currently
employed in Bangalore.
7. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the
Magistrate had considered all the circumstances and had rightly
granted interim maintenance of Rs.7000/- per month. He submitted
that the notice of hearing of the Criminal Revision was not duly
served upon the Petitioner / husband. He submitted that in absence
of any change in circumstances, only on basis of house rent and
various payments made towards maid charges and other expenses
disclosed in the affidavit by husband, interim maintenance is
exponentially increased from Rs.7000/- per month to Rs.50,000/- per
month. He further submitted that the bank statements of Respondent
No.1 / wife produced on record appear to show that she was
receiving amounts which she has transferred to her brother. He
further submitted that IT Returns are not filed by Respondent
No.1/wife. He also submitted that Respondent No.1 / wife is
willingly staying away and she is already occupying accommodation
of her parents and there is no requirement of payment of rent.
Therefore, the impugned order warrants interference for reduction
of interim maintenance.
8. On the other hand, learned Counsel for Respondent No.1/wife
submitted that in a revision challenging the order of the Magistrate,
there need not be any change of circumstances, as the challenge to
the original order is considered. He submitted that the amounts
reflected in the Bank Statements of wife are sporadic in nature and
do not indicate regular flow of income. He submitted that
Vina Khadpe 3
5.cri.wp.4372.2024 @.doc
Respondent No.1/wife is suffering from diabetes and certain skin
disease, for which she requires medical treatment resulting in
expenses. By pointing out various expenses of husband as declared in
the affidavit of assets and liabilities, it is contended that the Petitioner
/husband is earning well and regularly spending on house maid, high
house rent and credit card bills showing his life style, which were
already taken into consideration by the Revisional Court. He
submitted that, therefore, no interference is required in the impugned
order.
9. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record.
10. It is not in dispute that initially the Petitioner / husband has
filed restitution of conjugal right proceeding at Bhandara, however,
the same was withdrawn. It is also not in dispute that Respondent
No.1/wife had filed proceeding under Protection of Women from
Domestic Violence Act, 2005 at Vashi which was also ultimately not
prosecuted and dismissed for default. Recently, the
Petitioner/husband has filed divorce proceedings.
11. It is submitted by learned Counsel for Respondent No.1/wife
that the Petitioner/husband had left the matrimonial house when the
dispute started, and forced the wife to take shelter with her parents.
In the backdrop of such rival contentions and the factual position
about the proceedings filed against each other, it can neither be said
that Respondent No.1/wife is willfully staying away from the
Petitioner/husband nor can the Petitioner’s stand that ‘Respondent
No.1/wife can come and stay with him’ be fully accepted. Hence
Vina Khadpe 4
5.cri.wp.4372.2024 @.doc
there is no clarity as to why the Respondent No. 1/wife is not staying
with Petitioner/husband.
12. Be that as it may, increase in the amount of interim
maintenance from Rs.7000/- per month to Rs.50,000/- per month is
no doubt exponential. It is also true that Respondent No.1 / wife,
does seem to have received credit entries periodically, with some
breaks and the amounts seem to have been transferred in favour of
her brother. It is also not disputed that she is staying with her parents
and, as such, she is not required to pay separate rent for the same.
13. At the same time, the Court cannot lose the sight of the fact
that the Petitioner / husband, though was served (refusal of postal
packed recorded in roznama dated 12.7.2023) remained absent, and
the Revision Petition was heard ex-parte. Notwithstanding the
reasons for not remaining present, the Petitioner/husband apparently
could not point out the Bank statements of the wife, as there is no
reference to Bank statements of wife in the impugned order. The
medical records showing that Respondent No.1 / wife is suffering
from diabetes and some skin disease also have a bearing on the issue,
as the same would require medical expenses.
14. During the pendency of this petition, when the parties were
trying to resolve the issue of interim maintenance amicably, it was
informed through learned Counsel for Respondent No.1 /wife that if
the amount is partially reduced, and the arrears are cleared from the
date of application, then Respondent No.1/wife was ready to face
final hearing of the maintenance Application.
Vina Khadpe 5
5.cri.wp.4372.2024 @.doc
15. Since there is no clarity about the exact reason why
Respondent No.1/wife is not staying with husband and considering
that both the parties had filed the proceedings but not prosecuted
them, and since the Bank statements of Respondent No.1/wife shows
credit entries, which are not considered by the Revisional Court, and
since Respondent No.1 /wife is already staying with her parents, in
my view, partial reduction in the amount of interim maintenance is
necessary.
16. Therefore, considering the overall circumstances, and for
reasons indicated above, the Petition is partly allowed by passing the
following order :
(A) The impugned order dated 06.07.2024 is set aside.
(B) Crim. Rev. Petition No. 488/2022 is allowed,
thereby directing Petitioner/husband to pay
Rs.35,000/- per month as an interim maintenance
to Respondent No.1/wife from the date of
Application i.e. 27.11.2018.
17. Writ Petition is disposed of and Rule is made partly
absolute in the above terms. There shall be no order as to costs.
18. It is clarified that the observations made in this order are
limited to deciding the aspect of interim maintenance and the main
proceedings Crim. Misc. Appli. No.1125 of 2018 shall be decided on
its own merits and in accordance with law without being influenced
by the present order.
Vina Khadpe 6
5.cri.wp.4372.2024 @.doc
19. All concerned to act on duly authenticated or digitally signed
QR verifiable copy of this order.
(M.M. SATHAYE, J.)
Vina Khadpe 7
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.