Bombay High Court
Shilpa W/O. Amol Sherkhane vs Amol Sambhaji Sherkhane on 13 November, 2025
2025:BHC-NAG:12542
1311WP5368-25.odt 1 Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 5368 OF 2025
Shilpa Amol Sherkhane, Aged about 40 yrs, Occ: Govt.
Servant, R/o C/o Jija Pramod Shende, Plot No.85,
Shriram Nagar, Uday Nagar Chowk, Nagpur. PETITIONER
VERSUS
Amol Sambhaji Sherkhane, Aged about 41 years,
Occ: Service, R/o 6, Near Housing Board Office,
Manewada Square, Ring Road, Nagpur. RESPONDENT
______________________________________________________________
Shri J.M. Gandhi, counsel for the petitioner.
Shri M.D. Janabandhu, counsel for the respondent.
______________________________________________________________
CORAM : PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J.
DATE : NOVEMBER 13, 2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
RULE. Rule is made returnable forthwith and heard finally with the
consent of the learned counsel for the parties.
2. This petition highlights the issue of a husband's entitlement to claim
interim maintenance from his wife despite he being well qualified and
capable of securing employment. The petitioner wife has sought indulgence
of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by way of instant
petition challenging the order dated 17.07.2025 passed by the Family Court,
Nagpur directing her to pay maintenance pendente lite of Rs.5,000/- per
month along with litigation expenses of Rs.25,000/-.
3. The petition arises out of a matrimonial discord amongst the husband
and wife who are contesting the matrimonial litigations of divorce petition,
domestic violence proceedings and dispute about custody of their children.
The challenge in the instant petition is to an order passed by the Family Court
1311WP5368-25.odt 2 Judgment
on an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for
short, 'the Act of 1955') at Exhibit 15 in the proceedings for divorce which is
registered as A-508 of 2020 filed by the husband. The petitioner and
respondent were married on 19.02.2012 according to Hindu rites and
customs. Disputes arose in the matrimonial life and in the year 2020, the
husband filed the petition seeking dissolution of marriage alleging cruelty by
the wife, in which both parties have levelled several allegations about cruelty
and harassment against each other.
4. In this petition, the husband filed an application for maintenance
pendante lite of Rs.15,000/- per month along with Rs.7,500/- for rent and
litigation costs of Rs.25,000/- from the wife. The wife strongly opposed the
application by categorically stating that the husband is an able bodied and
well qualified person having worked as Engineer with Indian railways and is
in a position to maintain himself by securing a suitable employment. It was
pointed out that the husband was engaged in several acts of harassment to
the wife and their children and the application seeking maintenance is an
instance of such harassment. After considering the contentions of the parties,
the learned Judge, Family Court, Nagpur allowed the application by order
dated 17.07.2025 directing the wife to pay interim maintenance of Rs.5,000/-
per month from the date of the application till final disposal of the petition
on or before 10th day of every month along with litigation expenses of
Rs.25,000/-. Feeling aggrieved by this order, the wife has invoked the
jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
5. Shri J.M. Gandhi, learned counsel for the petitioner-wife strenuously
submitted that the approach adopted by the Family Court in ignoring the
1311WP5368-25.odt 3 Judgment
purport of the provision of Section 24 of the Act of 1955 is perverse. He
submitted that the husband has failed to demonstrate that he was unable to
maintain himself and there existed no grounds, much less any exceptional
circumstances establishing that he was in need of interim maintenance and
litigation expenses. He submitted that the husband is a well qualified person
who had worked as an Assistant Engineer-Group-A Officer in the Indian
Railways from 2006 to 2019 and although terminated on account of
misconduct, is an able bodied person who is able to maintain himself. He
submitted that wife although a government servant is maintaining herself
and their two children born out of the wedlock and is residing in a rented
premises with the support of her parents. It is therefore submitted that even
after considering the fact that the wife is employed, in the peculiar
circumstances of this case husband cannot claim any interim maintenance
and litigation expenses in the proceedings which he himself has initiated
leveling baseless allegations against wife. He invited attention towards the
conduct of the husband in filing several proceedings against the wife depicting
harassment on various counts. He therefore submitted that the application
for interim maintenance is filed by the husband only with an intention to
cause further harassment and mental agony. He thus submitted that the
Family Court has failed to appreciate the true purpose behind the concept of
interim maintenance and has misdirected itself in allowing the application.
6. Per contra, Shri M.D. Janbandhu, counsel for the respondent-husband
vehemently opposed the petition. He submitted that undisputedly the husband
is unemployed at this stage and the wife is working as a Medical Officer in
Public Health Department and earning salary of Rs.1,20,000/- per month. He
1311WP5368-25.odt 4 Judgment
submitted that the wife is leading a lavish lifestyle and she has also purchased
a new car and therefore she is legally and morally bound to maintain her
husband who has lost his job. He asserted that the husband is entitled to live
according to the same standard of living as that of the wife and submitted
that since the provisions of Section 24 allows the financially weaker spouse to
seek interim maintenance, he supported the impugned order and pressed for
dismissal of the petition.
7. Rival contentions thus fall for my consideration.
8. A perusal of the instant petition and reply dated 01.10.2025 filed by
the husband shows that the husband and wife are contesting several cases on
the basis of allegations against each other, even with respect to certain criminal
offences. The focus in the instant petition is entitlement of the husband to
claim interim maintenance and accordingly the controversy is dealt with from
this perspective.
9. Pertinent to note, the husband has claimed himself 'unable to maintain'
and only because wife is earning, has sought for interim maintenance. There
is no dispute that the wife is employed as a Medical Officer and she is
maintaining herself and the two children born out of the wedlock. She
claims to be residing in a rented premises which is not disputed by the
husband. Crucial to note that the husband is also well-qualified person who
has worked as 'Assistant Engineer - Group A Officer' in Central Railways from
2006 to 2019. The husband has himself stated on affidavit that he was
terminated on the charge of misconduct, following a departmental enquiry
and the punishment of removal from service is challenged in the proceedings
before the Central Administrative Tribunal.
1311WP5368-25.odt 5 Judgment
10. Thus, in the wake of aforesaid facts, it has to be seen as to whether the
husband can claim that he is unable to maintain himself only because he is
not having any job at present. Having regard to the scheme of Section 24 of
the Act, either of the spouse with no independent source of income can claim
maintenance pendente lite. However, in order to claim interim maintenance,
a husband with sufficient qualifications and ability to earn his livelihood will
also have to establish that the existing circumstances constrain him to be
completely dependent on somebody for his livelihood and that he is
handicapped to such an extent that he must be extended financial support to
survive. An able bodied husband having sufficient qualification and experience
is not expected to sit idle and depict helplessness to claim maintenance from
his earning wife against whom he is fighting several cases.
11. The material placed on record indicates that the husband is an able-
bodied person aged about 41 years and is fully capable of earning his
livelihood. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has consistently held that an able-
bodied spouse cannot be permitted to remain idle and then seek maintenance
from the other spouse. It is beneficial to make reference to the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shailja & Anr. Versus Khobbanna [(2018) 12 SCC
199], wherein it was held that 'mere capable of earning' is a factor that weighs
against granting maintenance. Similarly, in Kanchan Versus Kamalendra [AIR
1992 Bombay 493], this Court had reiterated that a person who is able-
bodied and capable of earning cannot be allowed to take advantage of his
own inertia (idleness).
12. The record further shows that the husband was employed with the
Indian Railways as an Assistant Engineer from 2006 to 2019 and his service
1311WP5368-25.odt 6 Judgment
came to be terminated on charges of misconduct. Any financial distress faced
by him is therefore a consequence of his own actions. The law does not
permit a litigant to benefit from his own wrongful conduct. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Inderjit Singh Grewal Versus State of Punjab & Another
[(2011) 12 SCC 588] has held that no party can be allowed to derive
advantage from his own wrongdoing. Applying this principle, a husband
whose unemployment arises out of misconduct cannot claim inability to earn
and shift the financial burden onto his wife.
13. Pertinently, this Court had earlier directed the husband to state on
affidavit the steps taken by him for securing employment. In response, the
husband has simply placed on record certain recruitment advertisements and
submitted that the husband is making efforts to secure employment. I am not
impressed with these submissions. The submissions in this regard clearly
appear to be an eyewash. The husband has filed the application under
Section 24 of the Act of 1955 only because there is a provision of law under
which he can apply however, the husband has failed to show and establish
any case proving his entitlement for interim maintenance from his wife.
14. It is also an undisputed fact that the husband owns a flat at Kavesar,
District Thane and earns rental income from it. In Shailja & Another (supra),
the Hon'ble Supreme Court emphasized that the existence of an independent
source of income is a relevant factor in declining maintenance. Therefore,
despite all these glaring factual aspects in the present case, the Family Court
has given undue importance to the sole circumstance that the husband has
lost his employment and straightway inferred that the wife should maintain
the husband. The Family Court committed a mistake while allowing the
1311WP5368-25.odt 7 Judgment
application for interim maintenance when there was no material placed on
record to show that the husband is genuinely incapable of maintaining
himself despite being able-bodied, educated and having rental income.
15. Moreover, the conduct of the husband in first filing a divorce petition
and soon thereafter seeking maintenance from the wife indicates an attempt
to exert pressure and cause harassment to her rather than to address any real
financial need. The Supreme Court in Rajnesh Versus Neha [(2021) 2 SCC
324], has extensively dealt with the legal position about law of maintenance
considering the remedy of maintenance as a measure of social justice and laid
down various guidelines. Having regard to the legal position in this regard, it
must be borne in mind that maintenance application must be bona fide and
not used as a means to exert pressure in matrimonial proceedings. The
application for maintenance filed by the husband in the instant case, appears
to fall in the latter category.
16. Considering the husband's physical capacity, educational qualifications,
prior employment history, the circumstances leading to his unemployment
and the fact that he has a regular rental income, he does not satisfy the legal
parameters for seeking interim maintenance from a working spouse. Granting
him an interim maintenance would amount to permitting misuse of the
remedy. Crucial to note, the wife is shouldering the responsibilities to
maintain two children while living in a rented house. Having regard to all
these vital aspects, the Family Court ought to have rejected the application
for grant of interim maintenance since no case was made out by him for
grant of interim maintenance.
1311WP5368-25.odt 8 Judgment
17. The petitioner has made out a case in her favour. The writ petition is
hereby allowed. The order dated 17.07.2025 passed by the Family Court,
Nagpur on application at Exhibit 15 is quashed and set aside. The
application at Exhibit 15 filed by the husband stands rejected.
18. Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.
(PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J.)
APTE
Signed by: Apte
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 20/11/2025 18:26:53
