Bombay High Court

AMIT NAMDEV PHAKADEversusRUPALI AMIT PHAKADE

Disposal: Disposed Off
Bench: SACHIN SHIVAJIRAO DESHMUKH

Holding

The trial court's order denying interim maintenance to the petitioner is upheld.

Summary

The petition stems from a Hindu marriage dated 2014 that produced a daughter. The husband (petitioner) lost his job during the COVID-19 pandemic and moved to Miraj, while the wife (respondent) continued working in Pune. The wife filed for divorce and both parties applied for interim maintenance; the trial court granted maintenance to the wife and rejected the husband’s cross‑application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The husband challenged this order, arguing his unemployment and the wife’s higher income warranted maintenance for him, and contended the trial court ignored his financial statements. The High Court observed that the husband’s affidavit showed a substantial loan liability with no explanation of repayment sources, invoking the clean‑hands principle and concluding that he failed to disclose key financial information. Accordingly, the Court found no error in the trial court’s decision and dismissed the writ petition with costs.

Issues considered

Whether the trial court erred in rejecting the petitioner's application for interim maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 in view of his claim of unemployment and financial constraints.

Legislation cited

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — s. 13(1)(i-a), 24

Subjects

interim maintenance
Hindu Marriage Act
Section 24
clean hands doctrine
financial disclosure
COVID-19 unemployment
family law

Judgment

                                   1                       7-WP-968-26.odt




       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
               CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
               CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

               CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.968 OFF 2026

Amit Namdev Phakade
Age 38 years, Occu. Nil
R/o. Shardul Nivas
Near Dr. Bapuji Salunkhe College
Swami Vevekanand Nagar,
Pandharpur Road, Miraj,
Taluka Miraj, District Sangli                ..   Petitioner

      Versus

Rupali Amit Phakade
Age 32 years, Occu. Service
R/o. C/o. Shankarrao Pisal,
At present Lavanmachi,
Taluka Walwa, District Sangli                ..   Respondent

Mr. S. P. Patil, Advocate for Petitioner


                            CORAM :        SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.
                            DATE       :   04-03-2026
PER COURT:-

1.    The Petitioner, by way of the present petition, seeks to

quash and set aside the order dated 17.09.2025 passed by the

learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Islampur, below application

Exhibit-18, in Hindu Marriage Petition No. 146 of 2024.


2.    By the order under challenge, the trial court allowed the

respondent/wife's application for interim maintenance and rejected

the petitioner/husband’s cross-application iled under Section 24 of

the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short “the Act”).
                                  2                         7-WP-968-26.odt



3.    The matrimonial history of the parties indicates that the

marriage, solemnized in 2014, resulted in the birth of a daughter.

The disputes surfaced when the petitioner relocated to Miraj

following job loss, while the respondent remained in Pune to

continue her employment. A subsequent legal notice from the the

petitioner was met with allegations from the respondent, who

eventually iled for divorce under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Act.

During   those    proceedings,         both   parties   sought    interim

maintenance from each other.


4.    The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the trial

court failed to consider the petitioner’s inancial constraints

caused by pandemic-related unemployment although qualiied. It

is further argued that the respondent’s income is suicient to

provide maintenance to the petitioner and that the aidavits of

assets and liabilities were not properly appreciated.


5.    Upon perusal of the record, this Court inds that while the

petitioner claims continued unemployment since the COVID-19

pandemic, his own aidavit discloses a substantial and regularly

serviced loan liability. No explanation has been ofered as to the

source   of   funds   utilized   for    these   repayments.      In   such

circumstances, a trial court has drawn an adverse inference

against a party for non-disclosure of key inancial information.
                                  3                      7-WP-968-26.odt



6.    It is a settled principle that a party seeking equitable relief

must approach the Court with clean hands. The petitioner's failure

to provide a transparent account of his inancial management

disentitles him to the relief sought.


7.    Consequently, there is no illegality or jurisdictional error in

the well-reasoned order of the trial court.


8.    The writ petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly

dismissed with cost.



                                  [SACHIN S. DESHMUKH]
                                          JUDGE

rrd

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…