Bombay High Court
Shacindra Kamala Prasad Shukla vs Priya Shachindra Shukla on 18 June, 2025
2025:BHC-AS:25107
Digitally
signed by
RUSHIKESH
RUSHIKESH VISHNU
VISHNU PATIL
PATIL Date:
2025.06.25
11:59:14
1 WP.16275.2023..doc
+0530
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 16275 OF 2023
Shachindra Kamala Prasad Shukla
Aged about 36 years, Occ: Service
Indian Inhabitant, residing at Room
No. 1302, 13th Floor, B Wing
Casabella, Palava City Lodha
Dombivali (East), Thane - 421 204 ...Petitioner
Versus
Priya Shachindra Shukla
Nee Miss Priya Banshidhar
Tiwari Age 35 years, Occ: Service
Indian Inhabitant of Mumbai,
residing at: 1101 A, Great Eastern
Garden, Opp. St. Xavier's Junior
College, LBS Marg, Kanjur Marg
(West), Mumbai - 400 078 ...Respondent
Mr. Shashipal Shankar for the Petitioner.
Mr. S. S. Dube a/w Mr. Nagendra Dube for the Respondent.
CORAM: MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J.
DATED : 18th JUNE 2025
JUDGMENT
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, the Writ Petition is taken
up for final disposal with consent of the parties.
2. The Petitioner- husband challenges the Order passed on Interim
Application No.164 of 2021 in Petition No. A- 1744 of 2019, pending
before the Family Court at Bandra, Mumbai. By the impugned Order
dated 24th August 2023, below Exhibit- 12, the Judge, Family Court has
18th June 2025
R.V.Patil
1 WP.16275.2023..doc
passed an order granting maintenance of Rs.15,000/- per month to the
Respondent- wife till disposal of the Petition.
3. The Petitioner and the Respondent were married on 28 th
November 2012. According to the Petitioner, the Respondent-wife left
the matrimonial home and started residing with her parents from May
2015. Due to the tantrums and ill-treatment by the Respondent, their
relations were strained. Despite the Petitioner buying a new flat for the
Respondent's comfort and according to her wish, her attitude did not
change, and she insisted on conditions that were impossible for him to
fulfill. On 7th June 2019, the Petitioner filed a petition for divorce
under Section 13(1)(i-a) and (i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act in the
Family Court at Bandra, Mumbai. The Respondent-wife filed an
interim application for maintenance on 29th September 2021. The
application for interim maintenance was decided by the Judge of the
Family Court vide order dated 24th August 2023, granting maintenance
to the Respondent-wife at the rate of Rs.15,000/- per month from 01 st
October 2022 till the disposal of the petition.
4. The Petitioner-husband is challenging the said order on the
ground that the Respondent-wife is already employed and is earning an
amount of Rs.21,820/- per month. She is earning an additional income
of Rs.2,00,000/- per annum through conducting tuition classes, which
is duly reflected in her Income Tax Returns. Apart from that, she has an
18th June 2025
R.V.Patil
1 WP.16275.2023..doc
additional income through interest on her Fixed Deposits. According to
the Petitioner, the monthly income of the Respondent-wife is
approximately Rs.40,000/- per month. In the affidavit of assets and
liabilities filed by the Petitioner he has disclosed that his income by way
of gross salary was Rs.65,774/-, and salary in hand was Rs.57,935/-.
His monthly expenses comes to Rs.54,000/- per month, since he is
residing with his old parents who need to be looked after and
maintained by him.
5. The learned counsel for the Petitioner has relied on the affidavit
of assets and liabilities filed by him to substantiate his argument that
the he is unable to pay Rs.15,000/- per month to the Respondent.
According to him, apart from other expenses amounting to
Rs.54,000/-, he is also required to incur additional expenses towards
his parents, such as their medicines, mobile bills etc. It is admitted that
there are no issues from the wedlock between the parties. The learned
counsel contends that the Respondent, in her affidavit disclosing her
assets and liabilities, has stated that her gross salary is Rs.21,820/- and
net salary is Rs.19,820/-. She is employed as an Assistant Teacher in
the Holy Cross Convent High School, Thane. Furthermore, her Income
Tax Returns for the years 2010-11, 2011-12, and 2017-18 disclose total
incomes of Rs.1,14,785/-, Rs. 1,15,228/- and Rs.1,90,890/- respectively,
18th June 2025
R.V.Patil
1 WP.16275.2023..doc
which is enough for her monthly expenses since she resides with her
parents.
6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the Respondent submits that
the Petitioner has suppressed material facts from this Court with an
object to mislead this Court. It is her contention that, the Petitioner
has filed two lists of documents before the Family Court. The first list
of documents is dated 04th July 2023 in which the net salary of the
Petitioner is shown to be Rs.1,51,284/- as per his pay slip for the month
of April 2022 and Rs.1,17,338/- as per the pay slip for the month of
September 2022. Learned counsel contends that the Petitioner has
deliberately suppressed his details regarding his employment,
including salary particulars, and other benefits such as privileges,
incentives and increments received from the company where he is
employed. He is employed in a reputed company on the post of Senior
Manager/Marketing Executive. The Petitioner has potential financial
resources, inclusive of a substantial income and savings. Despite
possessing the financial capacity he is avoiding his obligation in order
to deprive the Respondent from her legal dues for which she is entitled
as per the provisions of law. The present Writ Petition is also filed only
with an intention to harass the Respondent - wife. The Petitioner is
presenting distorted facts before this Court in order to gain sympathy
of this Court and thereby get the order impugned modified.
18th June 2025
R.V.Patil
1 WP.16275.2023..doc
7. It is the contention of the Respondent-wife that she resides with
her parents, who in turn reside with her brother's family. In her meager
income, it is impossible for her to carve out expenses towards rent if
she decides to reside separately. She has not suppressed any facts from
the Court and has disclosed her true and correct income. Admittedly,
net income she receives in hand is Rs.19,820/-, which is insufficient for
her needs. Most of her salary is exhausted in transportation and daily
food etc., hence she is in dire need of maintenance.
8. The Respondent has tendered the Petitioner's salary slips for
January 2024, February 2024, and March 2024, disclosing incomes of
Rs.66,713/-, Rs.68,962/-, and Rs.1,41,532/- respectively. It is further
submitted in the affidavit that, despite the Petitioner's claim that his
parents are dependent on him, his father's pension of Rs.28,000/-
from a Municipal Corporation school indicates that they are not at all
financially dependent on the Petitioner. Considering the posh locality
where the Petitioner resides, it cannot be held that he is unable to bear
the burden of maintenance of Rs.15,000/- per month. According to
her, most of her income is spent on her transportation and daily needs.
Considering the status of the Petitioner and his standard of living, the
Respondent is entitled to the maintenance amount granted by the
Family Court and, therefore, the impugned order does not deserve any
interference.
18th June 2025
R.V.Patil
1 WP.16275.2023..doc
9. After hearing the respective parties and perusing the impugned
order, it is undisputed that both parties are residing separately and
have filed their respective affidavits of assets and liabilities in the
Interim Application before the Family Court at Bandra. The Petitioner
has stated in the affidavit that he is working as a marketing executive in
Reliance Retail Limited and drawing a salary of Rs. 1,50,000/- per
month. As per the address disclosed by him he is residing in a well
furnished flat in a posh locality that is Casabella, Palava City, Lodha,
Dombivali (East), Kalyan. The Petitioner is residing with his parents
and his father is getting pension of Rs.28,000/- per month. He
disclosed his gross salary to be Rs.65,774/- and net salary to be
Rs.57,935/-. According to him, his monthly expenses are to the tune of
Rs.54,000/-. It is therefore his contention that, considering the net
salary of Rs.57,935/- which he gets in his hands, most of the salary is
spent on the monthly expenses which come to Rs.54,000/-, therefore
there is nothing left from his salary which he can spare to satisfy the
demand of the Respondent-wife. He is not in a position to make
payment of Rs.15,000/- p.m. towards maintenance of respondent as
directed by the Judge, Family Court.
10. The claim of the Petitioner has been falsified by the salary slips
annexed to the reply affidavit filed by the Respondent herein for the
months of April 2022 and September 2022, which discloses his net pay
18th June 2025
R.V.Patil
1 WP.16275.2023..doc
as Rs.1,51,284/- and Rs.1,17,338/- respectively. It also needs
consideration that, though he claims that his parents are dependent on
him, his own affidavit discloses that his father draws a pension of
Rs.28,000/- per month. Therefore, his parents are not financially
dependent on him and in fact they must be contributing to the monthly
maintenance of the family.
11. I find substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the
Respondent that the Petitioner has not disclosed his true income in the
affidavit of assets and liabilities. The salary slips placed on record
disclose his income above Rs.1,00,000/-. The Respondent-wife has
disclosed her income to be Rs.18,000/- per month from her salary as
an Assistant Teacher working in a Convent School. Though it is claimed
by the Petitioner that the Respondent-wife has an additional income
from the interest of the Fixed Deposits, the interest is negligible. Even
the income from tuition classes cannot be said to be a permanent
source of income.
12. There is a huge disparity in the income of the Petitioner and the
Respondent, which cannot be compared. The Respondent-wife is
certainly entitled to be maintained with the same standard of living as
she was accustomed to before their separation. While determining the
quantum of maintenance, the considerations that are required to be
taken into consideration are the income of the respective parties; their
18th June 2025
R.V.Patil
1 WP.16275.2023..doc
age; their responsibilities; their reasonable needs; necessities and
income derived from other sources, if any.
13. A useful reference can be made to the recent decision of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pravin Kumar Jain V/s. Anju Jain1.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in this judgment has once again reiterated
the guidelines for fixing the amount of maintenance. Though it is
observed that there cannot be a strict guidelines or fixed formula, but
referring to the earlier judgments, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
provided the factors to be looked into while granting maintenance,
which reads thus:
"38.1. Status of the parties, social and financial.
38.2. Reasonable needs of the wife and the
dependant children.
38.3. Parties' individual qualifications and
employment statuses.
38.4. Independent income or assets owned by the
applicant.
38.5. Standard of life enjoyed by the wife in the
matrimonial home.
38.6. Any employment sacrifices made for
responsibilities.
38.7. Reasonable litigation costs for a non-
working wife.
38.8. Financial capacity of the husband, his
income, maintenance obligations, and liabilities."
1 (2025) 2 SCC 227
18th June 2025
R.V.Patil
1 WP.16275.2023..doc
The factors have been laid down on the basis of the judgment of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh V/s. Neha and Anr.2 as well
as Kiran Jyot Maini V/s. Anish Pramod Patel. 3 Applying the
above factors to the fact of the present case, the wife needs to be
granted maintenance from the income of the husband since her own
income is insufficient for her maintenance.
14. In the present case though the wife is earning, the said income is
not sufficient for her own maintenance since she has to travel daily a
long distance for her job. She is staying with her parents which she
cannot stay indefinitely. Because of her meager earning, she is
constrained to stay in the house of her brother alongwith her parents
causing inconvenience and hardship to all of them. In such a income
she is not in a position to live a decent life. As against, it if compared
against the Petitioner's income, his income is far more than the
Respondent-wife's, with no financial responsibilities on him. Even
assuming the certain expenses must be necessary for the maintenance
of himself and the family members whom he is obliged to maintain, the
amount that remains is sufficient enough to enable him to support the
Respondent-wife as per the order passed by the Judge, Family Court at
Bandra. Merely because the wife is earning, she cannot be deprived
2 (2021) 2 SCC 324
3 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1724
18th June 2025
R.V.Patil
1 WP.16275.2023..doc
the support from her husband with the same standard of living to
which she is accustomed to in her matrimonial home.
15. I do not find the maintenance awarded by the Family Court is
unreasonable or extreme. Hence, the impugned order passed by the
Family Court does not warrant interference. In view of the aforesaid
observations, the Writ Petition is hereby dismissed. Rule is discharged.
[MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J.]
18th June 2025
R.V.Patil
