Bombay High Court
Shri. Ravindra S/O Prabhakarrao ... vs Smt. Priyanka @ Pooja W/O Ravindra ... on 23 July, 2025
2025:BHC-NAG:7160
1 923.REVN.187-2024.JUDGMENT.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 187 OF 2024
Shri Ravindra S/o Prabhakarrao
Deogade,
Aged about 42 Years, Occ. Service,
R/o. 28-J, Bhende Layout, Swalambi
Nagar, Nagpur-440022. APPLICANT
Versus
1. Smt. Priyanka @ Pooja w/o Ravindra
Deogade, (Ku. Priyanka D/o.
Ghanshyamji Kherde)
Aged about 42 Years, Occ. Service,
2. Mast. Pulkit @ Rudra S/o Ravindra
Deogade,
Aged about 12 Years, Occ. Student,
(Non-applicant No.2 being minor
through his mother legal guardian i.e.
Non-applicant No.1)
Both R/o. 28-J, Bhende Layout,
Swalambi Nagar, Nagpur-440022. NON-APPLICANTS
-----------------------------------------------
Mr. Y.R. Chougule, Advocate for the Applicant.
Mr. R.R. Deo, Advocate (Appointed) for the Non-applicants.
-----------------------------------------------
CORAM : URMILA JOSHI PHALKE, J.
DATED : 23rd JULY, 2025.
ORAL JUDGMENT :-
2 923.REVN.187-2024.JUDGMENT.odt
1. Heard finally by the consent of learned Counsel
appearing for the respective parties.
2. By this Revision, the Applicant who is the original
Respondent has challenged the order passed by the Principal
Judge, Family Court Nagpur granting interim maintenance at
the rate of Rs. 4,000/- per month each to the Non-applicants.
3. The brief facts of the case are as under:
3(i). The Applicant and the Non-applicant No.1/Wife are
legally wedded on 18.11.2011 at Laxmi Mangal Karyalaya,
Dhantoli, Nagpur as per the Hindu rites and customs. The
Non-applicant No.1/Wife has begotten one son from the said
wedlock. After marriage she resumed the cohabitation and it is
alleged that she was not treated well by the present Applicant,
and therefore, she constrained to leave the matrimonial house
and started residing at her parents house. Thereafter, she filed
the Petition No. E-425/2022 for grant of maintenance and other
reliefs under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
She has also claimed the interim maintenance from the present
Applicant on the ground that the present Applicant is working
as an Accountant in the Grip Tight Packaging Pvt.Ltd., drawing
3 923.REVN.187-2024.JUDGMENT.odt
a gross salary of Rs. 26,310/- and net salary of Rs 23,982/-. He
has not made any arrangement for her maintenance or for a
livelihood, and therefore, she claimed interim maintenance till
the disposal of the Application.
3(ii). The said Application was strongly opposed by the
present Applicant on the ground that she is earning for her
livelihood and drawing the salary of rupees 12 to 15 thousand
of doing the work of receptionist, and therefore, she is not
entitled for any maintenance.
4. Heard learned Counsel for the Applicant, who
submitted that the Non-applicant No.1/Wife is doing work as a
receptionist and she herself has left the matrimonial house, and
therefore, she is not entitled for any maintenance, whereas the
present Applicant is shouldering the responsibility of his
parents, he has to incur the expenses towards his livelihood,
and therefore, the amount of maintenance granted by the
learned Family Court is excessive and exorbitant. It is further
submitted that though the Non-applicant No.1 is residing in the
shared household alongwith the Applicant but no provision has
been made for her maintenance, and therefore, she is claiming
4 923.REVN.187-2024.JUDGMENT.odt
the maintenance amount. It is contended that, she is doing the
work as a receptionist and drawing the income of rupees 12 to
15 thousand, and therefore, she is not entitled for any
maintenance. On the contrary, the Applicant has shouldering the
responsibility of his parents and he has to incur the expenses
towards his livelihood as well as towards maintenance of his
parents. The learned Family Court has not considered this
aspect and granted maintenance on the higher side. It is
submitted that, as the Non-applicant No.1/Wife is already
earning the amount, and therefore, this aspect requires to be
considered, and therefore, the order passed by the learned
Family Court granting interim maintenance deserves to be
quashed and set aside.
5. Whereas, the learned Counsel for the
Non-Applicants submitted that, merely because the
Non-applicant No.1/Wife is earning some amount, is not
sufficient to deprive her from getting maintenance. He
submitted that, on the contrary there is no material evidence on
record to show that the Non-applicant No.1/Wife is earning
some amount and even accepting she is earning some amount
that itself is not sufficient to deprive her from getting the
5 923.REVN.187-2024.JUDGMENT.odt
maintenance. In view of that, the Revision being devoid of
merits liable to be dismissed.
6. After hearing both the sides and on perusal of the
entire material placed on record it reveals that the Applicant is
working in Grip Tight Packaging Pvt. Ltd., the salary slip which
is issued by the company on record, which shows that he is
drawing gross salary of Rs. 26,310/-, whereas drawing the net
salary of Rs. 23,982/-(page 121). It is an admitted position that,
the Non-applicant No.1/Wife alongwith her son is residing in a
shared household in the same house. It also reveals from the
record that the Non-applicant No.1/Wife has issued the notice
and claimed the maintenance from the present Applicant. No
provision is made for her maintenance or for the maintenance
of her son. Admittedly, she has to incur the expenses towards
the maintenance of her son as well as towards her daily
expenses. At this stage, nothing is on record to show that any
provision is made by the present Applicant being the husband
for the maintenance of her son or the wife.
7. The aspect as to the maintenance if she is working is
already considered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
6 923.REVN.187-2024.JUDGMENT.odt
Rajnesh vs. Neha, reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324 , wherein it has
been elaborated upon the broad criteria and the factors to be
considered for determining the quantum of maintenance. The
Hon'ble Apex Court emphasizes that there is no fixed formula
for calculating maintenance amount; instead, it should be based
on a balanced consideration of various factors. These factors
include and are illustrative but are not limited or exhaustive,
they are as under:
"i. Status of the parties, social and financial
ii. Reasonable needs of the wife and dependent
children.
iii. Qualifications and employment status of the
parties.
iv. Independent income or assets owned by the
parties.
v. Maintain standard of living as in the matrimonial
home.
vi. Any employment sacrifices made for family
responsibilities.
vii. Reasonable litigation costs for a non-working wife.
viii. Financial capacity of husband, his income,
maintenance obligations, and liabilities."
8. The law with respect to deciding the amount of
permanent alimony is also settled by the various decisions of the
Hon'ble Apex Court. In the case of Kiran Jyot Maini vs. Anish
7 923.REVN.187-2024.JUDGMENT.odt
Pramod Patel, reported in (2024) 7 SCR 942 , wherein the
Hon'ble Apex Court has considered the facts as follows:
"The status of the parties is a significant factor,
encompassing their social standing, lifestyle, and financial
background. The reasonable needs of the wife and
dependent children must be assessed, including costs for
food, clothing, shelter, education, and medical expenses.
The applicant's educational and professional qualifications,
as well as their employment history, play a crucial role in
evaluating their potential for self sufficiency. If the
applicant has any independent source of income or owns
property, this will also be taken into account to determine
if it is sufficient to maintain the same standard of living
experienced during the marriage. Additionally, the court
considers whether the applicant had to sacrifice
employment opportunities for family responsibilities, such
as child-rearing or caring for elderly family members,
which may have impacted their career prospects."
9. In another decision in Vinny Paramvir Parmar vs.
Paramvir Parmar, reported in (2011) 9 SCR 371, the Hon'ble
Apex Court has held that as there cannot be a fixed formula or a
straitjacket rubric for fixing the amount of permanent alimony
and only broad principles can be laid down. The question of
maintenance is subjective to each case and depends on various
factors and circumstances as presented in individual cases. This
Court in the above judgment stated that the courts shall
consider the following broad factors while determining
permanent alimony - income and properties of both the parties
8 923.REVN.187-2024.JUDGMENT.odt
respectively, conduct of the parties, status, social and financial,
of the parties, their respective personal needs, capacity and duty
to maintain others dependent on them, husband's own
expenses, wife's comfort considering her status and the mode of
life she was used to during the subsistence of the marriage,
among other supplementary factors.
10. In the light of the above factors narrated by the
Hon'ble Apex Court, if the facts of the present case are taken
into consideration, admittedly, the Family Court has granted
interim maintenance to the Applicant Nos.1 and 2 at the rate of
Rs.4,000/- per month each i.e. total Rs.8,000/- per month.
Considering, the prices of the essential commodities are also
touching to the sky the Non-applicant No.1/Wife has to incur
the expenses towards the education and maintenance of child as
well as towards her maintenance and in that circumstances the
Non-applicant No.1/Wife has to live her life as per the status of
the present Applicant and after balancing all these factors, it
would be appropriate to say that the maintenance granted by
the learned Family Court is just and proper, and therefore, the
Revision is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order.
9 923.REVN.187-2024.JUDGMENT.odt
ORDER
i. The Revision is dismissed.
ii. The learned Family Court, Nagpur shall proceed with
the main petition expeditiously by giving an
opportunity to both the sides to adduce the
evidence.
iii. The litigation between the parties pending before
the Family Court, Nagpur shall be decided
expeditiously.
iv. Fees of the learned Appointed Counsel for the
Non-applicants be quantified as per rules.
11. Pending application/s, if any, shall stand disposed of
accordingly.
( URMILA JOSHI PHALKE, J.)
S.D.Bhimte
Signed by: Mr.S.D.Bhimte
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 24/07/2025 18:02:30
