Bombay High Court
Michelle Ryan Scott vs Ryan Scott on 1 August, 2025
2025:BHC-AS:32695 33-WP-2613-2024.docx
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.2613 OF 2024
Mrs. Michelle Rayan Scott ....Petitioner
Versus
Mr. Rayan Scott ....Respondent
[
___________________
Adv. Srushti Kadam i/b. Adv. Shirin Merchant, for the
Petitioner.
Adv. M.K. Irani a/w. Adv. M.I. Choudhary and Adv. Niyati E.,
for the Respondent.
___________________
CORAM : MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J.
RESERVED ON : 7th JULY, 2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 1st AUGUST, 2025
ORDER :
1) The Petitioner-Wife, by invoking the powers of this Court
under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, has filed the
present Writ Petition challenging the order dated 11.09.2023,
below Exhibits 5 and 17, passed by the Judge, Family Court
No.4, Pune, in PA No.867 of 2019.
2) The facts, shorn of unnecessary details, are as follows:
[i] The Petitioner and Respondent were married on
19.11.2004.
___________________________________________________________
33-WP-2613-2024.docx
[ii] Two issues are born out of the said wedlock, namely,
Ethan Scott on 10.11.2009 and Kian Scott on 19.11.2013. Both
the children are in care and custody of the Petitioner.
[iii] Dispute arose between the parties in the year 2019 when
the Respondent started demanding Divorce from the Petitioner.
[iv] The Petitioner was beaten up by the Respondent in
February 2019. Thereafter, he started residing separately.
[v] The Respondent filed the Petition for Divorce in the
Family Court under the provisions of Indian Divorce Act, 1869,
bearing PA No.867 of 2019.
[vi] During the pendency of the Divorce Petition, the
Respondent filed an Application at Exhibit 5 for interim custody
of the minor children.
[vii] The Respondent was bearing all the household expenses
prior to March, 2019. In addition, he would give Rs. 10,000/- per
month and Rs. 2,500/- in Sodexo passes to the Petitioner for
her expenses.
[viii] The Respondent abandoned the Petitioner and children in
January, 2021, and shifted to his palatial house at Daund. He
was forcing the Petitioner to agree for Divorce.
[ix] The Respondent also stopped paying fees of children and
the minimum amount he was giving towards the household
___________________________________________________________
33-WP-2613-2024.docx
expenses. He also started harassing the Petitioner by curbing
her finances in order to coerce her to agree for a Divorce.
[x] Because of the prevailing circumstances, the Petitioner,
who had never served previously, secured a job for herself at a
meager salary of Rs. 15,000/- per month as a school teacher and
was working at Pearl Drop School.
[xi] The amount of Rs. 15,000/- was not sufficient for
maintaining herself along with her minor children. Therefore,
she was constrained to file Interim Application at Exhibit 17,
inter alia, claiming maintenance for herself and children with a
further prayer to restrain the Respondent from entering their
matrimonial house and also to follow a proper parenting plan.
[xii] The Respondent filed his reply-cum-counterclaim to the
said Application.
[xiii] The Application filed by the Petitioner at Exhibit 17, along
with the Application filed by the Respondent at Exhibit 5, for
custody of their minor children was decided vide common order
dated 11.09.2023, passed by the Judge, Family Court No.4,
Pune.
3) The Judge, Family Court, Pune, has partly allowed the
Applications at Exhibits 5 and 17. The maintenance of Rs.
15,000/- per month to each son was granted by the Family
___________________________________________________________
33-WP-2613-2024.docx
Court from the date of Application till the final decision of the
Divorce Petition. The Husband was granted visitation rights in
the form of overnight access to his sons Ethan and Kian on
every 1st and 3rd Saturday from 11:00 a.m. up to Sunday 6:00
p.m.
4) So far as Summer, Winter and Christmas Vacations are
concerned, half of the vacation was granted to each of the
parent with mutual understanding. The claim of the interim
maintenance of the present Petitioner-Wife has been rejected.
After the rejection of her claim for maintenance, the Petitioner
has challenged the order to the limited extent of rejection of her
claim for maintenance.
5) According to the Petitioner, the income earned by her is
Rs. 15,000/-, per month which is far less than the amount
required for day-to-day expenses of three persons, in today's day
of inflation.
6) The Respondent has abandoned her along with her
children without making any provision for them. She has been
forced to live separately from the Respondent because of his
violent tendency, unpredictable nature and abuses given by him
to the Petitioner. Because of his unpredictable and violent
nature, the children are also mentally disturbed. According to
___________________________________________________________
33-WP-2613-2024.docx
her, the Respondent has miserably failed to perform his
obligations towards her and their children.
7) It is the contention of the learned Advocate for the
Petitioner that, despite being extremely affluent with a good
income, the Respondent has neglected to maintain his wife and
children. The Respondent is working as Program Manager-
Digital Analytics at Eclerx Services Limited, Hinjewadi (IT
Industry) with a good salary of approximately Rs. 2 lakhs per
month. The Petitioner had to beg the Respondent even for
necessary expenses like school fees of the children, electricity
bill of the house, etc. Her income of Rs. 15,000/- is extremely
insufficient to meet the daily needs of herself and her two
children. She has borrowed funds from her parents, friends and
relatives to take care of the expenses of daily needs on various
occasions.
8) It is her further contention that, in addition to the daily
expenses, she also needs an amount of approximately Rs.
3,000/- per month for maid, about Rs. 3,000/- for petrol to drop
and pick up the children from the coaching and activity classes,
Rs. 2,000/- for groceries, school supplies, medicines, etc.
9) In such a situation, she is not able to manage from her
meager salary. It was, therefore, prayed by her that, the
___________________________________________________________
33-WP-2613-2024.docx
Respondent should be directed to pay Rs. 80,000/- per month to
the Respondent towards interim maintenance, apart from
continuing to pay the EMI towards housing loan availed by
them to the tune of Rs. 40,000/- per month.
10) The Application of the Petitioner was opposed by the
Respondent by filing reply affidavit. It is his contention that,
the allegations made by the Petitioner are totally false. The
allegations of Domestic Violence, as alleged, are made with
dishonest and mala fide intention. He has denied the allegation
of being violent. According to him, the question of his violent
tendency does not arise, since they have not spoken to each
other since the filing of the present Petition. He has a family
home at Daund, which is equipped with practicing sports for
the children, in order to encourage and ensure their
participation in sporting activities. He has installed various
equipments and gadgets at his home at Daund. He has a full-
sized snooker table, rifle shooting and boxing equipment, all
this is installed for their overall development and interest. He
has spent approximately an amount of Rs. 15 lakhs in the year
2021, for the said purpose. He is taking the children out for
vacations in India and when possible abroad. Therefore, he is
taking good care of the children and nurturing them.
___________________________________________________________
33-WP-2613-2024.docx
11) According to him, the Petitioner has been employed with
the school since last five years. Therefore, there is no question
of any grant of maintenance to her. She has suppressed her
income, which she has derived from investments in Fixed
Deposits (FDs).
12) On the contrary, it is his stand that, in fact, the present
Petitioner should be directed to contribute 50% towards the
expenses of their sons, since she is earning. She and their sons
are also residing in 2.5 BHK fully furnished apartment free of
cost. It is further submitted by him that, he has complied with
the order of maintenance granted in favour the children from
the date of order.
13) Heard Ms. Srushti Kadam as well as Mr. M.K. Irani and
perused the documents. Both parties have placed on record a
catena of decisions in support of their submissions.
14) The jurisdiction of this Court in Writ Petition under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India is very limited. Though
various reliefs were granted in the impugned order, the
Petitioner has limited her challenge only to the extent of prayer
clause (2), whereby her prayer for grant of maintenance was
rejected by the Judge Family Court. Therefore, the scope of the
present Writ Petition is also limited to the extent of perversity,
___________________________________________________________
33-WP-2613-2024.docx
if any, recorded by the Judge, Family Court, while rejecting the
claim of maintenance in favour of the present Petitioner.
15) The Judge of the Family Court has observed in the order
that, according to the judgment of Rajnesh V/s. Neha & Anr1,
the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that, even if the wife is
earning, it cannot operate as a bar for awarding maintenance to
the wife.
16) In view of the aforesaid judgment, the Judge of the Family
Court has assessed the income of both, the Petitioner as well as
Respondent. It is observed by the Judge of the Family Court
that, the Petitioner is receiving a salary of Rs. 38,000/- per
month. This is besides the invested amount of Rs. 4 lakhs in the
FDs. According to him, the fact of investment of 4 lakhs in the
FDs goes against the disclosure made by the Petitioner, hence
an adverse inference is required to be drawn against her, to
hold that the salary which she is receiving is more than
sufficient for maintaining herself. After incurring expenses for
all the daily needs, certain amount is saved, which she has
invested in FDs.
17) It is held that, the stand taken by the Respondent in her
Application and affidavits filed by her are not consistent with
1 (2021) 2 SCC 324
___________________________________________________________
33-WP-2613-2024.docx
each other. It is thus held that, since she has assets in the form
of FDs of Rs. 4 lakhs, it would give rise to the conclusion that,
she is earning more than sufficient.
18) On perusal of the affidavit of assets and liabilities of
Petitioner, that is placed on record, it is disclosed by the
Petitioner that the monthly expenses of the Respondent is to
the tune of Rs. 54,000/- and expenses towards children are Rs.
30,000/- per month. She has disclosed her monthly income as
Rs. 37,790/-, which is supported with the Bank Statement.
19) Upon going through the Bank Statement of IndusInd
Bank of the Petitioner, deposits in her savings account of Rs.
15,000/-, Rs. 13,000/-, and Rs. 10,000/- can be seen to have been
done, starting from 01.01.2021. The amounts are meager,
therefore, they cannot be said to be sufficient for the sustenance
of the Petitioner along with her two growing children.
20) So far as the FDs are concerned, they were invested in the
year 2015 and deposited for a period of three years. Therefore,
they cannot be considered a source of income for the Petitioner
to draw an adverse inference. The Petitioner has disclosed all
her three bank accounts, which do not show any large amounts
deposited. As against that, the Respondent has disclosed his
___________________________________________________________
33-WP-2613-2024.docx
monthly income as Rs. 3,16,000 and his annual income as Rs.
42,19,646/-.
21) While deciding a claim for interim maintenance, the
Applicant is required to establish that she does not possess
sufficient means or income to maintain herself and that the
Respondent has adequate income to provide for her
maintenance, which she is being denied.
22) In the present case, the Petitioner-Wife has admitted to
an income of Rs. 37,000/- per month. At the same time, the
Respondent-Husband has admitted his income as Rs.
3,16,000/-. Apart from his salary, the Respondent has also filed
account statements from Kotak Mahindra Bank and Punjab
National Bank for the years 2019-20 and 2020-21. He has
produced coloured photo copies of a snooker table, cricket pitch,
and boxing kit. The amenities that are available at his
bungalow in Daund are indicative of the affluent lifestyle of the
Respondent.
23) The Petitioner has stated on oath that the Respondent
was paying a negligible amount of Rs. 10,000/- along with
Sodexo coupons worth Rs. 2,500/- per month, which have been
stopped since January 2020. It is the stand of the petitioner
that, while the Respondent was residing with her, he was
___________________________________________________________
33-WP-2613-2024.docx
taking care of all the expenses such as groceries, travelling,
electricity bills, property tax, school fees, etc. Now, he has
stopped making such payments. It is also stated on affidavit
that, the Respondent makes payments according to his own
whims and fancies, whenever and whatever he feels like. Even
though the Respondent is taking care of the educational
expenses of the two sons, apart from that there are certain
other necessities requiring additional expenses.
24) Undisputedly, the Petitioner is residing in the
matrimonial house, i.e., Flat No. A-12, Brahma Avenue,
Kondhwa, Pune, merely having a roof on her head is not
sufficient for a mother with two young sons to manage day-to-
day expenses with her salary of Rs. 38,000/- per month. Tuition
fees, groceries, clothes, sports expenses for the children, and
many other necessities, need to be taken care of, which is not
possible with the salary of Rs. 38,000/- per month. Though she
has disclosed her FDs, they are not of any assistance for day-to-
day expenses.
25) In contrast, the Respondent, from the affidavit of assets
and liabilities filed by him, is clearly leading a very affluent
lifestyle. The Respondent has also invested in and installed a
full-size snooker table, rifle shooting, and boxing equipment in
___________________________________________________________
33-WP-2613-2024.docx
his house at Daund. He is boasting to have invested
approximately Rs. 15 lakhs in the year 2021 for this purpose.
He also has a large library of 300 books for children to read.
26) Considering the amenities which have been installed by
him in his house, he is certainly earning much more than the
Petitioner-Wife. The investments made by him also are of huge
amounts. His FDs are 85 lakhs, mutual funds investments are
2,50,000/-. The income of Rs. 3,20,000/- per month as disclosed
by him can nowhere be compared to the income of the
Petitioner-Wife. Since the Petitioner himself has left the
matrimonial home as has been admitted by him, it is his
responsibility to maintain is wife, who is residing along with
his two children.
27) The Petitioner is receiving a salary of Rs. 38,000/- per
month, which is disclosed by her. As compared to her, the
Respondent is receiving Rs. 3,20,000/- per month. Though the
Judge of the Family Court, Pune has granted maintenance of
the children at the rate of 15,000/- per month to each of them,
the Judge of the Family Court has rejected the claim of the
Petitioner for maintenance by holding that, since she is earning
salary of Rs. 38,000/- per month as a Teacher in English
Medium School, she has also invested in the FDs. Hence, she is
___________________________________________________________
33-WP-2613-2024.docx
receiving more than sufficient income, thereby drawing adverse
inference against her that, the salary, which she is receiving is
sufficient for maintaining herself. In view of FDs in her name,
an adverse inference is drawn by the Judge, Family Court
holding that if she can invest in the FDs, she must be earning
sufficient income to maintain herself.
28) This observation of the Judge, Family Court, is clearly
contrary to the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Chaturbhuj V/s. Sita Bai2, wherein it is
categorically held that, where the personal income of wife is
insufficient she can claim maintenance under Section 125,
Cr.P.C. The test is whether the wife is in a position to maintain
herself with the same standard as she used to in her
matrimonial house. The expression "unable to maintain
herself" does not mean wife must be absolutely destitute before
she can apply for maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C.
29) In the judgment of Rajiv Verghese V/s. Rose
Chakkrammankkil Francis,3 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
observed that, if the wife becomes accustomed to certain
standard of living in her matrimonial home, she is entitled to
2 (2008) 2 SCC 316
3 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3367
___________________________________________________________
33-WP-2613-2024.docx
enjoy the same amenities of life as she would have been entitled
to in her matrimonial home.
30) The above observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court are squarely applicable to the facts of the present case.
From the affidavit of the Respondent, it can be discerned that,
he is living highly affluent lifestyle with all the luxuries. As
against that, the Petitioner is left to cope up with the two young
children, their education and day-to-day expenses. Even
otherwise, comparing the income of the Respondent to that of
the present Petitioner, it can certainly be held that, the
Petitioner is not living the same standard of life, which she was
accustomed to while residing with the Respondent.
31) In the judgment of Pravin Kumar Jain V/s. Anju
Jain,4 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has culled out certain
factors to be considered from the judgment of Kiran Jyot
Maini V/s. Anish Pramod Patel5 and Rajnesh V/s. Neha
(supra), the following factors are to be looked into while
granting maintenance to the dependent wife :
[i] Status of the parties, social and financial.
[ii] Reasonable needs of the wife and the dependent children.
[iii] Individual qualifications and employment status.
4 (2025) 2 SCC 227
5 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1724
___________________________________________________________
33-WP-2613-2024.docx
[iv] Independent income or assets owned by the Applicant.
[v] Standard of life enjoyed by the wife in the matrimonial
home.
[vi] Any employment sacrifices made for the family
responsibilities.
[vii] Reasonable litigation costs for a non-working wife.
[viii] Financial capacity of the husband, his income,
maintenance obligations, and liabilities.
Applying the aforesaid factors, in the present case, the
Petitioner-Wife is undoubtedly entitled for the maintenance
from the Respondent for maintaining herself according to the
standard of her husband.
32) Assuming that the Respondent-Husband requires 50% of
the income for his own expenses and maintenance and he is
required to pay total of Rs. 30,000/- to both of his children, the
Petitioner would be certainly entitled to a maintenance of Rs.
20,000/- per month.
33) The Judge of the Family Court has committed a
jurisdictional error by arriving at a conclusion that, since the
Petitioner is able to save money and invest it in the FDs, she
must be in a sound financial position to maintain herself.
Therefore, she is not entitled to maintenance. The reasoning
___________________________________________________________
33-WP-2613-2024.docx
given by the Judge of the Family Court is contrary to the
judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as referred above,
which clearly lays down that, even if the wife is earning or has
an earning capacity, it cannot act as a bar for the wife to receive
maintenance from husband, in order to maintain herself with
the same lifestyle to which she was accustomed to during her
matrimonial home.
34) In view of the aforementioned observations the impugned
order dated 11.09.2023, passed by the Judge, Family Court
No.4, Pune, is quashed to the extent of refusing to grant
maintenance to the present Petitioner. It is hereby directed
that, the Respondent shall make payment of Rs. 20,000/- per
month to the Petitioner-Wife during the pendency of final
decision of the Petition. With the aforementioned observations,
Writ Petition is disposed off.
[MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J.]
___________________________________________________________
