Bombay High Court
Preti Devnani Musavi vs Mohammed Mahmood Musavi on 15 April, 2025
Author: Madhav J. Jamdar
Bench: Madhav J. Jamdar
2025:BHC-AS:18929 1 WP 19003.24.DOC
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.19003 OF 2024
Preti Devnani Musavi ...Petitioner
Versus
Mohammed Mahmood Musavi ...Respondent
Ms. Manali Joshi i/by Mr. Manan Sanghai, Advocate for Petitioner.
Mr. Vikas Shivarkar, Advocate for the Respondent.
CORAM: MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.
DATED : 15th April 2025
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Ms. Manali Joshi, learned Counsel for the Petitioner
and Mr. Vikas Shivarkar, learned Counsel for the Respondent.
2. By the present Writ Petition, filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, the challenge is to the legality and validity of
the Order dated 5th August 2024 passed by the learned Judge,
Family Court No.2, Pune below Exhibit-5 in Petition No. Cri. M.A.
No.51 of 2022 (pages 40-43 of the Writ Petition). By the impugned
Order an interim application, bearing Exhibit-5 filed on 25 th
October 2018 seeking interim maintenance, has been dismissed on
5th August 2024 i.e. after a period of about 6 years on the ground
that the Application has been signed only by the Advocate of the
Dusane
1 WP 19003.24.DOC
Petitioner, not signed by the Petitioner, not supported by an
Affidavit, that the Petitioner has not filed the Affidavit of disclosure
of assets and liabilities and that therefore the Petitioner has
concealed her income.
3. Ms. Joshi, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that
the reasons given by the learned Judge, Family Court are incorrect
and in any case are not relevant. She submitted that the said
Exhibit-5 Application has been filed on the same day on which
main Petition bearing Criminal M.A. No. 51 of 2022 has been filed.
The main Petition is signed and verified by the Petitioner. She
submits that in paragraph 1 of the said Application bearing Exhibit-
5, it is specifically stated that the contents of the said petition be
treated as part and parcel of the Exhibit-5 Application. She
submitted that in Exhibit 5 Application, some of the contents of the
main application are merely repeated and therefore not signing
Exhibit-5 Application by the Petitioner is not very relevant. She
submits that before passing the impugned Order, Affidavit of
disclosure of Assets and Liabilities is filed by the Petitioner and
therefore, the said reason given is totally incorrect. She submitted
that the Respondent has substantial income and he is maintaining
Dusane
1 WP 19003.24.DOC
luxurious lifestyle. She submits that the Petitioner is single
handedly maintaining twin daughters since 2018. She therefore
submits that the reliefs sought in the Writ Petition be granted and
in fact higher amount be granted as maintenance than claimed in
the Exhibit-5 Application as the Application has been filed in the
year 2018.
4. On the other hand, Mr. Shivarkar, learned Counsel for the
Respondent submitted that the Exhibit-5 Application has been
signed by the Advocate of the Petitioner and not signed and
verified by the Petitioner. Therefore, the learned Judge, Family
Court has rightly rejected the Exhibit-5 Application. He submitted
that monthly income of the Petitioner is Rs.25,000/- per month.
On the other hand, the Petitioner is earning very high income. He
submits that the family of the Petitioner is very rich. He therefore
submitted that the Writ Petition be dismissed. Alternative, he
submitted that by setting aside the impugned Order, the matter be
remanded back to the learned Judge, Family Court.
5. Before consideration of the rival contentions, it is necessary
to set out certain factual aspects:-
Dusane
1 WP 19003.24.DOC
(i ) The marriage between the Petitioner and the Respondent
was solemnised at Pune on 26th November 2012.
(ii) The couple has twin daughters of about 11 years (Date of
birth-12th September 2014).
(iii) Both Petitioner and Respondent started staying separate
since about February 2018. The twin daughters are staying with
the Petitioner-mother since February 2018.
(iv) The D.V. Petition was filed on 25 th October 2018 and Exhibit-
5 Application inter alia seeking following reliefs is also filed on 25 th
October 2018:-
"2. The Applicant may be granted interim alimony of:
A. Rs.1,50,000 per month for the Applicant.
B. Rs.20,000 per child per month.
C. All education expenses including fees,
private tuitions, conveyance, sports activities,
extra-curriculum activities etc. Education Fees
to be paid on actuals.
D. All expenses towards vaccinations of
both the children.
E. Medical insurance for the Applicant and
the children.
Dusane
1 WP 19003.24.DOC
F. Four wheeler car for the Applicant and
the children.
G. 3 bedroom flat in or around Wanowrie/
Salunke Vihar/ Sopan Baug on rent till the final
decision of the petition."
(v) The said Exhibit-5 Application seeking maintenance filed on
25th October 2018 was dismissed by the impugned Order dated 5th
August 2024.
6. Inso far as far as the reasoning given by the learned Family
Court, Pune to the effect that the Application is only signed by the
Advocate of the Petitioner and not signed and verified by the
Petitioner, Ms. Joshi, learned Counsel for the Petitioner points out
paragraph 1 of the said Application bearing Exhibit-5. In the said
paragraph, it is specifically stated that the Petitioner has filed a
Petition under Sections 12, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23 of the
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 ("D.V.
Act") and the said petition be treated as part and parcel of the
Application. In the said Petition No. Criminal M.A. 51 of 2022 (D.V.
Petition) inter alia, the Applicant has sought interim alimony of
Rs.1,50,000/- per month for the Applicant and of Rs.20,000/- per
month per child and in addition to the same also all education
Dusane
1 WP 19003.24.DOC
expenses including fees, private tuition, conveyance, sports
activities, extra-curriculum activities, other expenses etc. are
sought. Admittedly the contents of said D.V. Petition are singed and
verified by the Petitioner. The Application bearing Exhibit 5 and
said Criminal M.A. No. 51 of 2022 (D.V. Petition) are filed on the
same day i.e. on 25th October 2018. The contents of Application
bearing Exhibit 5 are inter alia also stated in said Criminal M.A.
No.51 of 2022. To reject the said maintenance application filed in
the year 2018 in the year 2024 i.e. after a period of about 6 years
on the said technical ground is totally unjust. The learned Judge
could have directed the Petitioner to comply with the said technical
objections. Therefore, the said Application bearing Exhibit 5 could
not have been rejected on the ground that the same is only signed
by the learned Advocate appearing for the Applicant and not by
the Petitioner and the contents are not supported by the Affidavit.
In any case, there is no prejudice to the Respondent as contents of
Exhibit 5 Application is part of said Criminal M.A. No.51 of 2022
which is signed and verified by the Petitioner. It is also required to
be noted that as mentioned in the impugned Order, the
Respondent has filed Say to the said Exhibit-5 Application and
Dusane
1 WP 19003.24.DOC
therefore, it is clear that no prejudice whatsoever has been caused
to the Respondent.
7. The other reason given in the impugned Order is that the
Petitioner has not filed affidavit of disclosure of assets and
liabilities. With reference to the said aspect, it is required to be
noted that the Exhibit 5-Application has been filed on 25 th October
2018. The judgment in the case of Rajnesh Vs. Neha1 requiring
both the Petitioner and the Respondent to submit Affidavit of
Assets and Liabilities has been delivered by the Supreme Court on
4th November 2020. In any case factually, affidavit of assets and
liabilities of the Petitioner has been filed on 7 th August 2023. Thus,
much before passing of the impugned Order dated 5 th August
2024, the Petitioner has filed Affidavit dated 7 th August 2023 of
Assets and Liabilities of the Petitioner. Thus, the rejection of said
Exhibit-5 Application on that ground is totally perverse. On the
assumption that the Petitioner has not filed Affidavit of Assets and
Liabilities, the learned Judge has observed that the Petitioner has
not placed true facts before the Court.
1 (2021) 2 Supreme Court Cases 324
Dusane
1 WP 19003.24.DOC
8. As the learned Judge, Family Court has incorrectly observed
that the Petitioner has not filed Affidavit of Assets and Liabilities
and on the technical grounds, rejected the Application by setting
aside the impugned Order, the Exhibit-5 Application should have
been remanded back to the learned Judge, Family Court. However,
in this case the Application seeking maintenance filed in the year
2018 is decided in the year 2024 and the Writ Petition is being
heard in the year 2025. Thus as far as twin daughters are
concerned, the maintenance application is decided by this Order
and as far as maintenance application for Petitioner-wife is
concerned, she is granted liberty to file fresh application.
9. It is the contention of the Petitioner in her application filed
under D.V. Act in paragraphs 28 to 31 as follows:-
"28. The Applicant submits that the Respondent No.1
is the partner and authorised signatory at Radiant
Construction located at Radiant House, Office No.1,
2nd floor, 150 Mahatma Gandhi Road, Pune 411001,
India. Annexed herewith is a copy of the MahaRERA
Application Information of the said organisation. The
Respondent No.1 along with his father is running the
business of land development, building and
construction and have leased out several properties
in and around Pune. The Respondent No.1 is earning
more than Rs.1,00,00,000 per annum from the said
Dusane
1 WP 19003.24.DOC
businesses. The Respondent No.1 is the Fitness
Motivator and founder of two companies PMM
Nutrition and Mohammed Musavi Fitness. The
Respondent No.1 also has a YouTube Channel in the
name of Mohammed Musavi Fitness, is a
motivational speaker and uploads videos on his
YouTube channel where he has approximately 20,000
followers. The Respondent No.1, through this
YouTube channel is doing online consultancy and
also is getting clients for the business of nutrition
and fitness. Annexed herewith are the pictures of the
Respondent No. 1's nutrition and fitness.
29. The Respondent No.1 Is using Chrysler,
Mercedes for his personal use. The Respondents'
family has many imported cars like 2 Mercedes,
Chrysler, Lancer, Mitsubishi Outlander, Hyundai
Civic. Annexed herewith are the pictures of the cars.
The Respondent No.1 uses clothing and accessories
of brands ranging from Louis Vuitton, TAG, Ernessa,
Jimmy Choo, etc. costing per shirt more than
Rs.25,000. The Respondent No.1 has a Vacheron
Constantin Limited Edition diamond watch costing
approximately Rs.50,00,000 and has 5 to 7 Rolex
Limited Edition watches which cost minimum 5 to 7
lakh rupees each. Annexed herewith is the picture of
the watch. The Respondent No.1 and 2 are currently
staying in a luxurious flat of approximately 8,000
sq.ft. with the best of furniture, paintings, a
gymnasium, artefacts, crockery, etc.
30. They eat Imported brands' foods and use
imported cosmetics and medicines to keep up to
their heavily lavish lifestyle. The Applicant, during
her stay with the Respondent No.1 had 5 helpers for
Dusane
1 WP 19003.24.DOC
their daily chores like looking after the home,
cooking, car-keeping, driving, baby sitting, etc. Every
few months, the Applicant and Respondents No.1
travel to various places around the world and stay at
the most luxurious resorts, visit spas, eat at luxurious
restaurants and enjoy the best of nightlife. The
Applicant submits that the Respondent No.1 had
gifted an Audi car for her personal use and Etios for
the children.
31. The Applicant submits that after the separation
the Applicant is required to stay at her mother's flat
on the mercy of her mother and brother. The
Respondent No.1 has taken the keys of all the
vehicles used by the Applicant and the children and
hence, the Applicant is required to travel by bus or
auto rickshaw. The Applicant submits that the
Applicant is unable to work or take any permanent
job as she is required to take care of the kids. The
Applicant submits that the Respondent No.1 is not
paying any amounts to the Applicant or the children
for their day to day needs, education, transportation,
medicines, vaccinations, etc. and hence, the
Applicant is praying for the Interim alimony as well
as permanent alimony for herself and her children
from Respondent No.1."
(emphasis supplied)
10. The Petitioner in the Affidavit of Assets and Liabilities gave
following information in Column-J as regards income of the
Respondent.
Dusane
1 WP 19003.24.DOC
"J. Information provided by the Deponent with
respect to the income, assets and liabilities of the
other Spouse
1. Educational and professional qualifications of the
other spouse: I state that the Respondent has
completed his B.com from Ness Wadia College, Pune
University.
2. Whether spouse is earning? If so, give particulars
of the occupation and income of the spouse.
I state that the Respondent is a partner with his
father in a construction and real estate company at
Radiant House, 2nd Floor, MG Road, Pulgate Police
Chowky, Camp, Pune-411 001. I state that the
partnership company also holds multiple land parcels
across Pune. I state that the Respondent is earning
an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- per month from his
construction and real estate businesses. I state that
Respondent is a known celebrity fitness trainer with
multiple high-profile clients from whom he charges
Rs.50,000/- to Rs.1,00,000/- per month/ per client
for training sessions. I state that Respondent own a
fitness brand company in the business of selling
Whey Protein and earns an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/-
per month. I state that the Respondent is earning
about Rs.1,00,00,000/- per annum. I state that apart
from this the Respondent is having various
investments with various schemes and earning
interests on the same. I state that the Respondent is
owner of luxurious cars. I state that the Respondent
is owner of flats at Wanowrie, Salunke Vihar and
Padamji Park. I state that the Respondent is having a
Dusane
1 WP 19003.24.DOC
company in abroad and earning income from the
same.
(Emphasis added)
11. Thus, the contention raised is that the present Respondent
is the partner and authorised signatory of Radiant Constructions.
The Respondent alongwith his father is running the said business
of land development and construction and that the Respondent is
earning more than 1.00 Crore per annum from the said business. It
is further stated that the Respondent No.1 is a Fitness Motivator
and founder of two Companies namely PMM Nutrition and
Mohammed Musavi Fitness. The Respondent No.1 also has a
YouTube channel in the name of Mohammed Musavi Fitness and
has approximately 20,000 followers. It is further stated that
Respondent is a known celebrity fitness trainer with multiple high-
profile clients from whom he charges Rs.50,000/- to Rs.1,00,000/-
per month/ per client for training sessions. The Respondent owns a
fitness brand company in the business of selling "Whey Protein"
and earns an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- per month. The Respondent
is earning about Rs.1,00,00,000/- per annum.
Dusane
1 WP 19003.24.DOC
12. It is the main contention of learned Counsel for the
Respondent No.1 that the Petitioner is the owner of five Firms and
that the Respondent is earning only Rs.25,000/- per month. It is
required to be noted as clarified earlier that this Court is not
considering the maintenance application of the wife and the
maintenance application is being considered only for twin
daughters.
13. In this behalf, it is required to be noted that admittedly there
are twin daughters out of the said wedlock. The date of birth of
twin daughters is 12th September 2014. Thus, the daughters are
presently about 11 years. It is admitted position that the D.V.
proceedings are filed on 25th October 2018 and the said application
seeking maintenance was also filed on 25 th October 2018. It is also
admitted position that till date not a single penny has been paid by
the Respondent-father even for maintenance of twin daughters. It
is also admitted position that the twin daughters are single
handedly maintained by the Petitioner since 2018. It is settled legal
position that if the wife is earning, then it is the responsibility of
both the parents to maintain the children.
Dusane
1 WP 19003.24.DOC
14. As far as the contention raised in the D.V. proceedings that
the Respondent is the partner and authorised signatory at Radiant
Construction with his father, it is stated in the detailed Say dated
2nd April 2019 filed by the Respondent that he was earlier partner
with the father in the said business, however, he has resigned from
the same and therefore, he has nothing to do with the said
business. It is further stated that now the Respondent is struggling
in his business ventures and he is not even earning more than
Rs.50,000/- to 1,00,000/- per annum approximately. The relevant
part of the Say of the Respondent is paragraph 5, which reads as
under :
"5. Respondents state that content of paragraph
three with respect to Respondent No.1 being a partner
and authorised signatory at Radiant Construction is
not true and correct. Rest of the content is false and
hence denied by him. Respondent No.1 specifically
denies that he is earning Rs. 1,00,00,000/- (Rupees
One Crore Only) per annum. It is most humbly
submitted that Respondent No.1 was a partner and has
resigned from the company and hence, has nothing to
do with the business of his father. Respondent No. 1
states that he is still struggling in his business ventures
and is currently earning not more than Rs. 50,000/-
(Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) to Rs. 1,00,000/-
(Rupees One Lac Only) per annum approximately.
Respondent No.1 states that due to financial constrain
he is currently residing with his mother since he
Dusane
1 WP 19003.24.DOC
cannot afford separate accommodation. However, it
may be relevant to point out that due to insistence of
the Applicant, the Respondent No.1 had to take
separate accommodation on rent during June, 2012 to
February, 2018 and the rent used to be mostly paid by
the father of Respondent No.1."
15. In view of the above contention raised by the Respondent, it
is required to be noted that the Petitioner has produced alongwith
compilation of documents, details of a property owned inter alia by
the Respondent admeasuring about 24,000 sq. mtrs. having value
of Rs.6.00 Crores in the year 2013. The photograph of the
Respondent produced on page-71, according to the Petitioner is
taken at a 5 Star Hotel in Dubai. The photograph alongwith
message on page-78 shows that the Respondent has posted a
picture alongwith message few month back on social media
platform i.e. Instagram, stating that he has bought a leather jacket
worth Rs.4,00,000/- for his girlfriend. Ms. Joshi, learned Counsel
for the Petitioner is right in contending that such lifestyle cannot
be maintained if the Respondent is earning Rs.25,000/- per month.
Thus, this is clear that the Respondent who is having substantial
income and inspite of that has not paid even a single penny for the
maintenance of the daughters at least since the year 2018. It is also
Dusane
1 WP 19003.24.DOC
very clear that the Petitioner has not disclosed true facts before the
Court.
16. The Petitioner has filed Affidavit-in-Reply dated 7th April
2025 in this Writ Petition. However, it is required to be noted that
the Respondent has not mentioned his income. In the entire
Affidavit, he has not disclosed about the income, which he is
getting per month. Thus, it is clear that the Respondent has not
come with clean hands in the Court. The Supreme Court in the
case of S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu Vs. Jagannath2 has held that the
litigant, who's case is based on falsehood, has no right to approach
the court. He can be summarily thrown out at any stage of the
litigation. The said principle is also applicable to the Respondent as
he has not placed the true position before this Court and therefore
adverse inference is required to be drawn against the Respondent.
17. It is required to be noted that the Respondent who is earning
substantially has not paid a single penny to the twin daughters. It
is required to be noted that the Application which has been filed by
the Petitioner seeking maintenance to herself and to the twin
2 (1994) 1 SCC 1
Dusane
1 WP 19003.24.DOC
daughters is filed on 25th October 2018. The said application is
decided by the impugned Order dated 5 th August 2024 by the
learned Judge, Family Court and dismissed on technical grounds
and totally perverse grounds as set out hereinabove. Therefore, it
is necessary that in the interest of justice, the prayers made in the
Application on 25th October 2018 are required to be moulded in
the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice
and kindness.
18. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of by passing
following operative order:-
(A) The impugned Order dated 5th August 2024 passed by the
learned Judge, Family Court No.2, Pune below Exhibit-5 in Petition
Criminal M.A. No. 51 of 2022 is quashed and set aside. The said
Application bearing Exhibit-5 is allowed by passing the following
directions:
(I) The Respondent shall pay maintenance of
Rs.20,000/- per child per month from 25 th October 2018
till 25th October 2021.
Dusane
1 WP 19003.24.DOC
(II) The Respondent shall pay maintenance of
Rs.50,000/- per child per month from October 2021 till
October 2024.
(III) The Respondent shall pay amount of Rs.75,000/-
per month from November 2024 till the disposal of said
Petition No. Criminal M.A. 51 of 2022.
(B) The maintenance as per the above direction be paid per
month on or before 10th day of each succeeding month. First such
payment shall be made on or before 10 th May 2025. As far as the
arrears of maintenance from 25th October 2018 till 31st March 2025
the same shall be paid within a period of 3 months.
(C ) The Respondent is directed to deposit above payments as per
the above schedule in the account of the Petitioner. Learned
Advocate of the Petitioner to communicate details of the Account
number of the Petitioner to the learned Advocate appearing for the
Respondent on or before 5th May 2025.
(D) As far as the Petitioner-wife is concerned, the wife is granted
liberty to file fresh application before the Family Court, Pune
seeking maintenance. If such application is filed, the learned
Family Court, Pune to decide the same on its own merits.
Dusane
1 WP 19003.24.DOC
19. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of in above terms
with cost of Rs.1,00,000/- to be paid by the Respondent to the
Petitioner within eight weeks from today.
BHALCHANDRA
GOPAL
DUSANE (MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.)
Dusane
