Bombay High Court
VINAY RAM PRAKASH PAULversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR OFFICE OF GOVERT. PLEADER AND ANR
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The High Court quashed the Family Court's order and remanded the maintenance application for fresh hearing, directing interim maintenance payments.
Summary
The Bombay High Court entertained a writ petition filed by Vinay Ram Prakash Paul challenging an order dated 08.02.2024 passed by the Family Court at Bandra. The petitioner sought to have the order quashed and to obtain an opportunity to lead evidence in the maintenance proceedings. The Court, after hearing counsel for both parties, set aside the impugned Family Court order and remanded the maintenance application for a fresh hearing, allowing both parties to present evidence. It directed the petitioner to pay interim maintenance of Rs.20,000 per month to the wife and Rs.10,000 per month to the daughter, and to deposit any arrears due to the daughter within two weeks. The Family Court was instructed to expedite the proceedings and decide the maintenance claim on its merits, and the writ petition was thereafter disposed.
Issues considered
- Whether the order passed by the Family Court on 08.02.2024 should be quashed.
- Whether the maintenance application should be remanded for a fresh hearing with opportunity to lead evidence.
- What interim maintenance amount, if any, should be directed pending final determination.
Subjects
- maintenance
- family court
- quash order
- interim maintenance
- fresh hearing
- writ petition
- Bandra
- High Court of Bombay
Judgment
65-WP-8623-2024 (C).doc
S.S.Kilaje
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 8623 OF 2024
Vinay Ram Prakash Paul … Petitioner
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra And Anr … Respondents
_________________________________________________________________
Digitally signed
SONALI by SONALI
SATISH KILAJE
SATISH Date:
2026.08.28
KILAJE 17:27:42
+0530
Mr. Jagdish S. Hegde, Advocate for Petitioner.
Mr. A.A.Purav, AGP for State-Respondent No.1.
Ms. Khushboo D. Rohra a/w. Ms. Reshma Mishra, Advocate for
Respondent No.2.
_________________________________________________________________
CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.
DATE : 27th AUGUST, 2026.
P.C. :
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned AGP for the
State and learned counsel for respondent No.2.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, seeks leave
to withdraw the petition with liberty to the petitioner to lead evidence and
place on record the material in support of his case.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submits that she also
needs opportunity to lead evidence in support of her case.
4. Considering the submissions of both the learned counsel, I pass
following order :
Page 1 of 2
65-WP-8623-2024 (C).doc
S.S.Kilaje
ORDER
(i) The impugned order dated 08.02.2024 below Exhibit
-6 passed by the Family Court at Bandra, Mumbai, is
quashed and set aside.
(ii) The maintenance application is remanded to the
Family Court at Bandra, Mumbai, for fresh hearing
by giving opportunity to both the parties to lead their
evidence.
(iii) Till the decision of the maintenance application, the
petitioner shall pay Rs.20,000/- per month to the
respondent No.2 - wife and Rs.10,000/- per month
to their daughter.
(iv) The learned Family Judge shall decide the
maintenance application and the quantum of
maintenance on its own merit.
(v) The petitioner shall deposit the arrears of
maintenance amount payable to the daughter, if any,
before the Family Court within two weeks.
(vi) The Family Court shall expedite the proceedings.
5. Writ Petition is disposed of.
(SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)
Page 2 of 2
Checking your session…