Bombay High Court
POONAM YOGESH KSHIRSAGARversusYOGESH RAVINDRA KSHIRSAGAR AND ANR
- Decided
- Disposal
- Partly Allowed
Holding
The petition is partly allowed and the matter is remanded for fresh hearing with fresh affidavits, directing the Family Judge to decide the maintenance application within six months.
Summary
The petitioner, Poonam Yogesh Kshirsagar, filed a writ petition challenging the Family Court's order rejecting her maintenance application on the ground that she allegedly failed to disclose bank accounts and that a five‑year limitation period had elapsed. The petitioner claimed she had no income, while the respondent asserted she had independent earnings and had suppressed information about two bank accounts. The Family Judge relied on transaction alerts from the respondent’s bank, treating them as evidence of the petitioner’s assets, and dismissed the application. The High Court found that the Family Judge had not properly considered the documents and that the petitioner’s explanation regarding non‑operational accounts was not given due weight. Consequently, the Court partially allowed the petition, remanded the matter for a fresh hearing, directed both parties to file fresh affidavits of assets and liabilities, and instructed the Family Judge to decide the maintenance claim within six months.
Issues considered
- Whether the Family Court erred in rejecting the maintenance application on the basis of alleged non‑disclosure of bank accounts.
- Whether the five‑year limitation period for challenging the earlier order applies in this case.
- Whether the petitioner’s credibility regarding her financial status can be established despite the respondent’s transaction alerts.
Subjects
- maintenance
- family court
- writ petition
- bank accounts
- credibility
- limitation period
- remand
- fresh hearing
Judgment
88-WP-8594-2025 (C).doc
S.S.Kilaje
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 8594 OF 2025
Poonam Yogesh Kshirsagar ...Petitioner/s
VERSUS
Yogesh Ravindra Kshirsagar And Anr ...Respondent/s
_________________________________________________________________
Ms. Shrusti Chalke i/b. Mr. Drupad Patil, for the Petitioner.
Digitally signed
SONALI by SONALI
SATISH KILAJE
SATISH Date:
2026.10.05
Mr. Vaibhav P. Patankar i/b Patankar & Associates, for the Respondent.
KILAJE 15:30:08
+0530
_________________________________________________________________
CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.
DATE : 30th SEPTEMBER, 2026.
P.C. :
1. The challenge in this petition is to the order of rejection of
maintenance application passed by Family Court, Pune.
2. It is contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that
petitioner has no source of income whereas the respondent works in I.T.
company and earns a salary of Rs.1.5 lakh per month. The learned Family
Judge has dismissed the maintenance application on the ground that D.V.
application of the applicant was rejected by J.M.F.C. but the said order has
not been challenged by the petitioner for five years. The petitioner has
stated that she has no bank accounts but respondent has produced the
record to show that petitioner is having bank accounts and later on, she
admitted the same. Such conduct and exaggerated facts create doubts
regarding her credibility. The respondent has specifically mentioned that
Page 1 of 3
88-WP-8594-2025 (C).doc
S.S.Kilaje
petitioner is in service and doing business and respondent was receiving
transaction alerts from SBI which was placed before the learned Family
Court. The observation of the learned Judge is erroneous. Learned
counsel further submitted that in the Affidavit filed before the Family
Court, the petitioner had not mentioned about the two bank accounts
because they were not in operation. But, this fact was not considered by
the learned Judge and has passed impugned order, which is erroneous and
requested to allow the petition.
3. It is contention of learned counsel for respondent that petitioner
had suppressed the information about her bank accounts before the
Family Court. She has an independent source of income. The learned
Judge has passed well reasoned order. No interference is required in it
and requested to dismiss the petition.
4. I have heard both the learned counsel. Perused impugned order
and documents produced on record. It is contention of petitioner that she
had not given details of two bank accounts as they were not operational. It
appears from the record that petitioner had given details of the bank
account after filing of application by the respondent. Learned counsel for
respondent fairly submitted that he was receiving transaction alerts from
SBI but that account belonged to a different person and not the petitioner
but the learned Judge has considered it as one of the ground to dismiss the
Page 2 of 3
88-WP-8594-2025 (C).doc
S.S.Kilaje
petition. It appears that learned Judge has not considered the documents
produced on record properly. Hence, I find it a fit case to remand the
matter for fresh hearing by giving an opportunity for both the parties to be
heard and I pass following order.
ORDER
(i) Petition is partly allowed.
(ii) The matter is remanded for fresh hearing.
(iii) Both the parties shall file fresh affidavit of assets and
liabilities along with details.
(iv) The learned Family Judge shall decide the maintenance
application as early as possible preferably within six
months after receipt of this order.
(SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)
Page 3 of 3
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.