Bombay High Court
Vaibhav Digambar Parab vs Bhagyashree Vaibhav Parab on 10 June, 2025
2025:BHC-AS:24254
1/13 41 civil wp 4126 of 2025, 10.6.2025,j..doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.4126 OF 2025
Vaibhav Diigambar Parab .... Petitioner
Versus
Bhagyashree Vaibhav Parab .... Respondent
.....
Mr.Swapnil Bangar a/w. Mr.Ashwin Tripathi, Advocate for the
Petitioner.
Mr.Satya Shettigar and Sairaj Kank, Advocate for Respondent.
.....
CORAM : MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J.
DATED : 10.06.2025
JUDGMENT :
1 Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.
2 The Petitioner husband is challenging the order passed in
Interim Application No.188 of 2023 in Petition No.A-1722 of 2022,
passed by the Family Court at Bandra, below Exhibit 18 dated
06.12.2024.
3 The Petitioner herein has filed proceedings for divorce against
Respondent-wife under Section 13(1)(ia) and Section 13(1)(ib) of
the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. According to the Petitioner they were
married on 26.04.2016 and were blessed with a baby boy on
Digitally
signed by
RAJESHRI
RAJESHRI PRAKASH
PRAKASH AHER
13.07.2017. There were quarrels and disagreements between the
AHER Date:
2025.06.19
20:26:08
+0530 Rajeshri Aher
2/13 41 civil wp 4126 of 2025, 10.6.2025,j..doc
parties. The Petitioner has made allegations of extra marital affair
against the Respondent. As a result of discord between the parties,
the Petitioner has filed divorce proceedings, which are pending before
the Family Court.
4 During the pendency of the divorce proceedings, parties were
referred to the Marriage Counselor. During the counseling, ad-hoc
Consent Terms were agreed upon between the parties in which
Petitioner had undertaken to continue to pay the school fees, school
van fees, tuition fess and pay for other extra curricular activities of
their son Prem. It was also agreed that the Petitioner can have
overnight access of their son on every Saturday and Sunday and also
50% of overnight access during the summer, Diwali and Ganpati
vacations. The Consent Terms were executed between the parties
before the Family Court on 13.03.2023. As such there was an interim
arrangement made for access of the Petitioner. The Respondent
herein has filed her written statement in the divorce proceeding on
05.10.2023.
5 The Respondent, on 08.12.2023 has filed an application for
interim maintenance and expenses of proceedings, under Section 24
of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. In her application, she has claimed
an amount of Rs.35,000/- per month towards her maintenance and
Rs.15,000/- per month for the maintenance and education expenses
of their minor son.
Rajeshri Aher
3/13 41 civil wp 4126 of 2025, 10.6.2025,j..doc
6 The application filed by the Respondent was opposed by the
Petitioner by filing reply to the application.
After hearing the parties, the Judge, Family Court, Bandra,
Mumbai has passed an order dated 06.12.2024, granting an amount
of Rs.15,000/-, per month towards maintenance for the Respondent
and Rs.10,000/- per month towards the maintenance of the minor
child from the date of application i.e. from 08.12.2023, till the
disposal of the Petition. Additionally, the Petitioner is also directed, to
make payment of school expenses of the minor child, in the same
school in which he is presently pursuing his education. It is this order
which is impugned in the present Writ Petition.
7 The learned advocate for the Petitioner Mr.Bangar submits
that, the application of the Respondent seeking maintenance and
expenses is not maintainable in view of the Consent Terms, which
were arrived at between the parties, and are part of the record. The
Consent Terms, provide that the Petitioner has undertaken to bear
the education expenses of their son, and he undertakes to continue to
bear the same. While drawing the Consent Terms, Respondent has not
claimed any maintenance for herself thereby waiving her right to
claim maintenance. Hence, now she is precluded from raising any
such claim for maintenance, by way of separate application.
8 Apart from this objection, it is the contention of the learned
Rajeshri Aher
4/13 41 civil wp 4126 of 2025, 10.6.2025,j..doc
advocate for the Petitioner that, the Respondent is earning a good
salary, no one is dependent upon her. The Petitioner is taking care of
all the expenses of their minor child. Therefore, Respondent is not
eligible for grant of any maintenance as claimed by the Respondent.
The Petitioner relies on the affidavit of assets and liabilities
filed by the parties.
9 As per the affidavit of the Respondent, she is working with one
M/s.Korodia Clinic, SRL Diagnostic having franchisee of Agilus
Diagnostics Ltd. with a monthly salary of Rs.17,605/-. It is claimed by
her that the Petitioner is working in a vehicle finance company i.e.
Shriram Finance for more than 12 years and he is drawing salary of
Rs.70,000/- per month. He is also having franchisee of SRL
Diagnostic, for which he earns Rs.6,00,000/- per month. It is further
claimed that the Petitioner is running 13 medical stores and earns
Rs.8,00,000/- per month. In view of the income earned by the
Petitioner, the Respondent is claiming that she is entitled for
maintenance of Rs.35,000/- for herself and Rs.15,000/- per month for
their minor son Prem.
10 The claim of the Respondent about his monthly income of
Rs.14,00,000/- is totally denied by the Petitioner. It is contended by
learned advocate for the Petitioner that in fact he has started SRL
Lab for his wife, from which she is earning income of more than
Rajeshri Aher
5/13 41 civil wp 4126 of 2025, 10.6.2025,j..doc
Rs.35,000/- per month. It is his contention that he has already left
the job of Shriram Finance in the year 2020. He further submits that
he has huge liabilities, he is paying EMI of Rs.30,495/- towards home
loan, Rs.34,196/- towards auto loan and Rs.13,887/- towards bike
loan.
11 The Petitioner contends that the Judge of Family Court,
Bandra, while allowing the Application has relied on the affidavit of
assets and liabilities filed by the parties, and his bank statements.
According to him certain entries are relied upon by the Respondent
to assert that he is earning handsomely from his business of SRL
Diagnostic as well as medical stores. Hence, the entries of huge
amounts are reflected in his bank statements. However, just below
those entries of huge amounts, there are certain entries wherein
amounts are again debited in favour of one Pradeep Jain. Therefore, it
is clear that whatever amount are received by him are again diverted
in the name of Mr.Pradeep Jain, who owns the business. Hence, those
cannot be relied upon to claim that he is earning from his business of
Agilus Diagnostics Blood Collection Center, Bhandup.
12 According to the Petitioner, the affidavit of assets and liabilities
filed by the Respondent-wife discloses that she is qualified and is
employed with Agilus Diagnostics Ltd., as a Phlebotomist, and she has
disclosed her net salary to be Rs.17,605/- per month. Considering that
she is already earning a good salary, and she has no dependent on
Rajeshri Aher
6/13 41 civil wp 4126 of 2025, 10.6.2025,j..doc
her, the Petitioner is already taking care of all the expenses of the
minor child, the claim made by the Respondent towards her own
maintenance does not deserve consideration.
13 Per contra, opposing the prayer of the Petitioner, the advocate
for the Respondent Mr.Shettigar submits that the Consent Terms filed
before the Family Court, Bandra, Mumbai, were by way of an interim
arrangements, which is titled as, "Consent terms for ad-hoc
maintenance and interim access". Therefore the Respondent is not
precluded from filing an application for interim maintenance for
herself and for her child during the pendency of the proceedings.
14 Even otherwise, there was no provision made in the said
Consent Terms making any arrangements for maintenance to be
provided to the Respondent, during the pendency of the proceedings.
Therefore, the Respondent was at liberty to file an application for
grant of interim maintenance. After filing of ad-hoc Consent Terms
on 13.03.2023, which were filed during the counseling session before
the Family Court, Bandra, Mumbai, the Respondent has filed written
statement negating all the adverse averments made by the Petitioner.
The written statement was filed on 05.10.2023.
15 It is submitted that considering the meager salary received by
the Respondent, she was constrained to file an application for interim
maintenance for the survival of herself and their son.
Rajeshri Aher
7/13 41 civil wp 4126 of 2025, 10.6.2025,j..doc
Accordingly, she has filed an application seeking interim maintenance
on 08.12.2023. It is her contention that the allegations in the divorce
petition filed by the Petitioner is false and frivolous. The Petitioner
has doubted her chastity. The Respondent was harassed by the
Petitioner and his mother. It is her contention that the Petitioner is
earning a handsome income from his service in Shriram Finance
Company as well as the franchisee of SRL Diagnostic, which comes to
around Rs.6,00,000/- from two franchisees and also the 13 medical
stores owned by him. According to her, the estimated earning of the
Petitioner is about 14,70,000/- per month. In view of the huge
difference in their earnings, she alongwith their son is entitled for
interim maintenance of Rs.35,000/- and 15,000/- per month,
respectively.
In support of her contention, she has relied on the affidavit in
lieu of assets and liabilities filed by the Petitioner wherein he has
disclosed that his total monthly expenses are to the extent of
Rs.42,800/- per month and he owns two properties at Thane as well
as Kasheli village, Bhiwandi. Hence, according to her in view of the
income of the Petitioner, which is not disputed, the order passed by
the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bandra, Mumbai dated
06.12.2024, granting maintenance of Rs.15,000/- and Rs.10,000/-,
respectively to her and her son does not need any interference.
Rajeshri Aher
8/13 41 civil wp 4126 of 2025, 10.6.2025,j..doc
16 I have heard the respective parties and I have also gone
through the documents placed on record with the assistance of the
respective parties. So far as the objection regarding the right of the
Respondent to file the application for interim maintenance is
concerned, the very title of the Consent Terms discloses that it was
'Ad-hoc maintenance and interim access'. Hence, the right of the
Respondent cannot be said to be taken away, due to the Consent
Terms, which were arrived at between the parties during the
counseling process.
17 In the application filed by Respondent it is categorically
averred in paragraph 6 of the Application that, the Petitioner is
earning Rs.70,000/- per month from his employment, and also earns
Rs.6,00,000/- per month from two franchisees and Rs.8,00,000/- per
month from the 13 medical shops, totaling to Rs.14,70,000/- per
month. The averments made by the Respondent in the application in
paragraph 6 has not been denied by the Petitioner in the reply filed by
him to the application of the Respondent for interim maintenance.
The only reply to the contents of paragraph 6 of the Respondent's
application is that the Petitioner is paying the maintenance to the
child including his educational expenses as per the Consent Terms
agreed upon between the Petitioner and the Respondent, and he is
ready and willing to continue to pay the maintenance to his son and
Rajeshri Aher
9/13 41 civil wp 4126 of 2025, 10.6.2025,j..doc
that Respondent has filed the application only with an intention to
grab money from the Petitioner.
18 As far as her averments regarding the income of the Petitioner
are concerned, those are not denied by the Respondent in his say.
Therefore, those have gone untraversed.
19 I have also gone through the affidavit of assets and liabilities
filed by the respective parties. The Judge of the Family Court has
rightly observed that the Petitioner affirms that he earns
Rs.5,00,000/- per annum from the business of Agilus Diagnostics
Blood Collection Center, Bhandup. The Bank statements which are
placed on record for the period from 01.02.2024 to 27.07.2024
discloses several cash credit entries. Though the Petitioner claims
that immediately after the cash credit entries of various large
amounts, immediately entries of debit made in favour of Mr.Pradeep
Jain of Krishna Medicos are found. The said debit entries were made
on the same day from the petitioner's account. Merely on the basis of
some entries in favour of Mr.Pradeep Jain, relief cannot be denied to
the Respondent. There are various other entries of large amounts,
after which there is no debit made in anybody's favour. After going
through the Bank statements, it is clear that the Petitioner is a man
of means and earns substantial amount through various sources.
20 The case of the Petitioner is primarily based on the fact that the
Rajeshri Aher
10/13 41 civil wp 4126 of 2025, 10.6.2025,j..doc
Respondent-wife is employed and earns decent monthly salary.
Admittedly, the wife has disclosed her monthly income in the affidavit
filed by her reflecting her assets and liabilities. However, the ground
of source of income available to wife, is no more available to husband
for refusing maintenance, in wake of the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has taken a view that
merely because wife is earning, maintenance cannot be denied to her.
In Rajnesh Vs. Neha and Anr. 1, the Apex Court has taken into
consideration various provisions in the different enactments
providing maintenance to the wife. Paragraphs 82 and 83 of the said
judgment is reproduced hereunder, which read thus:
82. Section 23 of the HAMA provides statutory
guidance with respect to the criteria for determining the
quantum of maintenance. Sub-section (2) of Section 23 of
the HAMA provides the following factors which may be
taken into consideration: (1) position and status of the
parties, (ii) reasonable wants of the claimant, (iii) if the
petitioner/claimant is living separately, the justification for
the same, (f) value of the claimant's property and any
income derived from such property, (v) income from
claimant's own earning or from any other source.
83. Section 20(2) of the DV Act provides that the
monetary relief granted to the aggrieved woman and/or the
children must be adequate, fair, reasonable. and consistent
with the standard of living to which the aggrieved woman
was accustomed to in her matrimonial home.
In paragraph no.90 of the very judgment, the Hon'ble Apex
Court, has in no uncertain terms held that, if wife is earning it cannot
1 (2021)2 SCC 324
Rajeshri Aher
11/13 41 civil wp 4126 of 2025, 10.6.2025,j..doc
operate as bar from being awarded maintenance by husband. While
making above observations, the view taken by this Court is approved.
This Court in the case of Sanjay Damodar Kale Vs. Kalyani Sanjay
Kale2, has taken a view that neither the potential to earn, nor the
actual earning of wife howsoever is meager is sufficient to deny claim
of maintenance to wife.
Paragraph 34 of the Judgment in the case of Sanjay Damodar
Kale Vs. Kalyani Sanjay Kale (Supra) , which is is reproduced as
under:
"34. However, the fact that the wife carries on some
business and earns some money is not the end of the
matter. Neither the mere potential to earn nor the actual
earning, howsoever meager it may be, is sufficient to deny
the claim of maintenance. The learned Judge, Family Court
was justified in placing reliance on the judgment of the
Supreme Court in the case of Sunita Kachwa Vs. Anil
Kachwa, wherein it was observed that, 'the learned counsel
for the respondent submitted that the appellant-wife is well
qualified, having post graduate degree in Geography and
working as a teacher in Jabalpur and also working in
Health Department. Therefore, she has income of her own
and needs no financial support from respondent. In our
considered view, merely because the appellant-wife is a
qualified post graduate, it would not be sufficient to hold
that she is in a position to maintain herself. Insofar as her
employment as a teacher in Jabalpur, nothing was placed
on record before the Family Court or in the High Court to
prove her employment and her earnings. In any event,
merely because the wife was earning something, it would
not be a ground to reject her claim for maintenance."
2 2020 SCC OnLine Bom 694
Rajeshri Aher
12/13 41 civil wp 4126 of 2025, 10.6.2025,j..doc
21 In view of the consistent view that is taken by the High Courts
as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court, that even if the wife has the
potential to earn or is earning to some extent, she is entitled to
maintenance in accordance with the lifestyle she enjoyed in the
matrimonial home, commensurate with her husband's means.
Sustenance does not mean and cannot be allowed to mean mere
survival. Applying the principles laid down in various judicial
pronouncements to the present case, merely because the Respondent
is earning some paltry amount, she cannot be denied the
maintenance, in order to maintain herself and their son, with the
same standard of lifestyle, which she enjoyed in their matrimonial
home while residing with husband. It is also held that, if he is able-
bodied, and could not avoid his obligation, except on any legally
permissible grounds mentioned in the statute.
22 In today's day of inflation, an amount Rs.17,605/-, cannot be
said to be sufficient for even fulfilling the bare minimum necessities of
life. Considering the income of the present Petitioner, the Respondent
alongwith their son deserves the maintenance, as granted by the
Family Court, Bandra, Mumbai.
23 The Respondent is earning a meager salary of Rs.17,605/-.
There is a huge disparity in the income of Petitioner and Respondent.
The obligation of the husband to provide maintenance stands on a
higher pedestal than the wife. In view thereof, Petitioner has failed to
Rajeshri Aher
13/13 41 civil wp 4126 of 2025, 10.6.2025,j..doc
make out a case for interference in the impugned order. Hence, the
order passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bandra, Mumbai,
does not deserve any interference. Hence, the Writ Petition is
dismissed.
24 When this Court was not inclined to interfere with the orders
passed by the Family Court, Mumbai, Bandra, an earnest request was
made by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that in case the Court
is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order, the proceedings
pending before the Family Court, Bandra, Mumbai, may be expedited.
In view of the request made by the learned counsel for the Petitioner,
and the assurance given by the Advocate for the Respondent to co-
operate in early disposal of the proceedings, the Principal Judge,
Family Court, Bandra, Mumbai, is requested to hear and dispose of
the proceeding pending before the Family Court, Bandra, Mumbai, as
early as possible preferably within a period of six months from
receipt of the order.
(MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J.)
Rajeshri Aher
