Bombay High Court
SHREYANSH MOTILAL GADAversusHEENA SHREYANSH GADA
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The Court held that since the son has become a major and is employed and the wife is not entitled to house‑rent maintenance, the maintenance order ceases and both petitions are dismissed.
Summary
The husband (Petitioner) and wife (Respondent) each filed writ petitions challenging a maintenance order passed by the Family Judge, which required the husband to pay Rs.15,000 monthly for the minor son, Rs.30,000 as house rent to the wife, and Rs.30,000 for the son's education. The husband argued that he had complied with the order up to September 2024 and that the son, having attained majority in 2022 and now employed, is no longer entitled to maintenance or educational expenses, and that the wife is not entitled to house‑rent maintenance. The wife contended that the maintenance amounts were insufficient and sought enhancement, while acknowledging the son’s majority and employment. The Court examined whether maintenance obligations continue after the son becomes a self‑supporting adult and whether the wife is entitled to house‑rent maintenance, finding no merit in the wife's claim for enhancement. Consequently, the Court dismissed both petitions and ordered that the husband need not make further payments, directing the wife to file an application to withdraw any amounts already deposited.
Issues considered
- Whether maintenance to a son continues after he attains majority and becomes self‑supporting
- Whether the wife is entitled to house‑rent maintenance under the order
- Whether the maintenance order can be enhanced despite the son’s majority and the wife’s claim
Subjects
- maintenance
- family law
- majority
- house rent
- enhancement of maintenance
- writ petition
- High Court
Judgment
3-WP-4942-2024 (C).doc
N.S.Kamble
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 4942 OF 2024
Shreyansh Motilal Gada ...Petitioner
Versus
Heena Shreyansh Gada ...Respondent/
with
WRIT PETITION NO. 14464 OF 2024
Heena Shreyansh Gada ...Petitioner
Versus
Shreyansh Motilal Gada ...Respondent
Digitally signed
____________________________________________________________
by NILAM
NILAM SANTOSH
SANTOSH KAMBLE Mr.Vikram Deshmukh a/w Mr.Ativ Patel and Mr.Harshad Vyas i/b AVP
KAMBLE Date:
2026.09.17
10:15:17 +0530 Partners, for the Petitioner in WP No.4942 of 2024 and for the Respondent
in WP No.14464 of 2024.
Mr.K.H. Holambe Patil a/w Mr.Vishal G. Shirsat, for the Petitioner in WP
No.4942 of 2024 and for the Respondent in WP No.14464 of 2024.
____________________________________________________________
CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.
DATE : 10th SEPTEMBER 2026
P.C. :
. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned counsel for
the Respondent.
2. The Petitioner-Husband and Respondent-Wife have challenged
the same maintenance order passed by the learned Family Judge, Mumbai
whereby the learned Family Judge has directed the Petitioner to pay
monthly maintenance of Rs.15,000/- to minor son, Rs.30,000/- to the wife
Page 1 of 3
3-WP-4942-2024 (C).doc
N.S.Kamble
towards house rent and Rs.30,000/- towards educational expenses of son.
The wife has challenged the said order for enhancement of maintenance
amount.
3. It is contention of the learned counsel for the Petitioner-husband
that the Petitioner has complied with the order passed by the
learned Family Judge and has deposited the maintenance amount till
September-2024. The learned counsel further submitted that the son has
turned major in year 2022 and presently he is working. This Court may
dispose of the Petition, considering the fact that son is not entitled for
maintenance anymore and whatever amount has been deposited by the
Petitioner is sufficient.
4. The learned counsel for Respondent-Wife submits that the
learned Judge has granted maintenance on lower side. He fairly admits that
son has attended majority and working but he submits that the maintenance
amount awarded by the learned family Judge is on lower side and requested
to dismiss the Petition filed by the Petitioner-Husband.
5. I have heard both learned counsel. Perused impugned order.
6. As per impugned order, monthly maintenance of Rs.15,000/- is
granted to the minor son, Rs.30,000/- granted as house rent to the wife and
Rs.30,000/- granted as educational expenses to the son. I do not find any
Page 2 of 3
3-WP-4942-2024 (C).doc
N.S.Kamble
infirmity in it, during this period the minor son has became major and he
got job so he is not entitled for maintenance and educational expenses. As
well as the wife is not entitled for house rent. The Petitioner has deposited
aforesaid maintenance amounts till September-2024 before this Court.
Henceforth, the Petitioner need not to deposit these maintenance amounts.
Though, Petitioner-Wife has claimed enhancement of the amount, I do not
find any merit in it as the learned Family Judge has passed well reasoned
order. In view of above, I pass following order.
ORDER
(i) Both the Petitions are dismissed.
(ii) All pending Applications are disposed of.
7. The Petitioner-wife shall file Application for withdrawal of the
amount deposited before this Court. The learned counsel for Respondent
submits that Respondent has no objection to the withdrawal of the said
amount.
(SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)
Page 3 of 3
Checking your session…