[Cites 12, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Sachin S/O Balasaheb Agne vs Harshada W/O Sachin Agne on 10 April, 2026
2026:BHC-NAG:5770
1 WP2210.23.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 2210 OF 2023
PETITIONER : Sachin S/o Balasaheb Agne,
Aged about 50 years, Occu. Business,
R/o 502, Capital Heights, Rambagh,
Nagpur.
VERSUS
RESPONDENT : Harshada W/o Sachin Agne,
Aged about 45 years, Occu. Household,
R/o 4/304, Balaji Apartment,
Central Railway Colony, Near Kaolde College,
Nagpur - 440 027.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Rishi Bhargava, Advocate with Ms. Gayatri Diwe, Mr. Ankit
Swarup and Ms. Rini Mehra, Advocates for the petitioner
Mr. Ritesh Badhe with Ms. Shruti Shahakar, Advocates for the
respondent.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : M. W. CHANDWANI, J.
Judgment Reserved on : March 06, 2026
Judgment Pronounced on : April 10, 2026
JUDGMENT:
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by
consent of the learned counsels appearing for the parties.
2. By this petition, the petitioner/husband challenges the
order dated 13.03.2023 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court
No.3, Nagpur (hereinafter referred to as "the Family Court") on the
2 WP2210.23.odt
application (Exh.12) filed by the respondent/wife under Section 24
of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act
of 1955") in Petition No. A-42/2021, thereby directing the
petitioner to pay interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,00,000/-
per month to the respondent from the date of application till
disposal of the main petition. The petitioner was also directed to
pay costs of Rs.25,000/- to the respondent.
3. The petitioner and the respondent got married on
27.11.2004. Out of the said wedlock, a daughter named Sawanya
and a son named Sanshray were born. In the month of March-
2019, the husband came to know about the extra-marital
relationship of the wife. Therefore, they got separated. After the
wife left the matrimonial home, the husband filed a petition under
Sections 13(1)(i) and (ia) of the Act of 1955 based on the
confession of extra-marital relationship praying for the decree of
divorce before the Family Court, Nagpur ; whereas, the wife filed a
petition under Section 9 of the Act of 1955 praying for restitution
of conjugal rights.
4. In the petition filed by the husband, the wife filed an
application under Section 24 of the Act of 1955 for grant of
3 WP2210.23.odt
maintenance pendente lite @ Rs.5 lakhs per month and for
payment of expenses of the proceedings filed by her, which came to
be partly allowed by the impugned order. Feeling aggrieved, the
husband has filed this petition.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Mr.
Rishi Bhargava submits that the Family Court did not consider the
fact that the respondent failed to provide a complete disclosure of
her expenditures in her affidavit of assets and liabilities, which is
mandatory in wake of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case
of Rajnesh Vs. Neha and another, reported at (2021) 2 SCC 324,
wherein at paragraph 65, the Supreme Court has observed thus :
"65. The party claiming maintenance either as a
spouse, or as a partner in a civil union, live-in
relationship, common law marriage, should be
required to file a concise application for interim
maintenance with limited pleadings, alongwith an
Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities before
the concerned court, as a mandatory requirement.
On the basis of the pleadings filed by both parties
and the Affidavits of Disclosure, the Court would be
in a position to make an objective assessment of the
approximate amount to be awarded towards
maintenance at the interim stage."
6. Reliance is also placed on the decision of the Delhi High
Court in the case of Kusum Sharma Vs. Mahinder Kumar Sharma ,
4 WP2210.23.odt
reported at 2020 SCC Online Del 931.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the
Family Court applied the standard laid down for permanent
alimony while deciding an application for interim maintenance.
The Court did not consider the difference between Section 24 and
Section 25 of the Act of 1955 and erroneously assessed the
maintenance considering the idle assets of the husband, which is
not the purview of Section 24 of the Act of 1955. Section 24 is
based on the principal of sufficient independent income and for
that purpose, it considers the assets that are primarily concerned
with the current income of the parties and not the property which
does not generate income. The learned counsel also contended that
the properties which were under litigation have also been
erroneously considered by the Family Court. The Family Court
failed to distinguish between the existence of capital assets and its
capacity to generate actual income, which is the cornerstone of the
analysis under Section 24 of the Act of 1955. To buttress his
submission, the learned counsel seeks to rely on the decision of this
Court in the case of Ritula Singh Vs. Lt. Col. Rajeshwar Singh,
reported at 2010 SCC Online Bom 288 ; the decision of the Delhi
High Court in Shakti Pershad Vs. Ratna Pershad, reported at 2003
5 WP2210.23.odt
SCC Online Del 93 ; and the decision of the Calcutta High Court in
Gita Chatterjee Vs. Probhat Kumar Chatterjee, reported at 1987
SCC Online Cal 87.
8. On factual aspects, the learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that the children i.e. the son and the daughter are residing
with the husband and he is taking care of them. Both are pursuing
education in the United Kingdom (UK) and a huge amount is
required to be spent on their education. Rather, the grandmother
and paternal aunt are taking care of the education of the children
of the parties to the petition. According to him, the petitioner's
average gross total income is not more than Rs.20 laks per annum
which is evident from the Income Tax Returns filed on record for
the years 2018 to 2025 and therefore, the wife's share will be Rs.5
lakhs per annum, which approximately comes to Rs.40,000/- per
month.
9. Lastly, the learned counsel for the petitioner Mr.
Bhargava submits that the respondent has concealed her income.
She is running a catering business along with her brother in the
name of 'Narmada Caterers' and is earning Rs.20,000/- per month,
which has not been considered by the Family Court.
6 WP2210.23.odt
10. The sum and substance of the argument of the learned
counsel for the petitioner is that, considering the income and
responsibility of the husband, the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- granted
by the Family Court to the respondent towards interim
maintenance is exorbitant. According to the learned counsel,
considering the income of the petitioner and his responsibility
towards children, the respondent is not entitled to get maintenance
pendente lite of more than Rs.25,000/- per month. Therefore,
according to him, the impugned order passed by the Family Court is
not correct and the same is required to be modified.
11. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the
respondent Mr. Ritesh Badhe has supported the impugned order
passed by the Family Court. According to him, a wife is entitled to
have the status and lifestyle which is at par with the petitioner.
The petitioner is frequently traveling abroad which itself indicates
his lifestyle and standard of living. He further submits that
contrary statements are being made by the petitioner in respect of
the education of the children. According to him, on one hand the
petitioner states that he is taking care of the education of his
children and on the other hand, he states that their grandmother
and paternal aunt are taking care of the education. According to
7 WP2210.23.odt
the learned counsel, various properties have been sold by the
petitioner. He further submits that the petitioner has a stake in
various companies which generate handsome income. The
respondent has already filed a statement of her assets and liabilities
on oath and has shown the amount required for her maintenance
i.e. Rs.5 lakhs per month.
12. The learned counsel vehemently submitted that the
respondent is not earning anything. The catering business i.e.
Narmada Caterers is being run by her brother. She is residing at
her parents' house at their mercy. It is contended that a civil suit
for specific performance of contract was filed by the petitioner
against a third party showing his readiness and willingness to
purchase a costly property, which itself shows that he has the
means to pay the amount of maintenance granted by the Family
Court vide the impugned order. According to the learned counsel,
recently this Court at Principal Seat has dealt with an identical
issue in the case of Purvi Mukesh Gada Vs. Mukesh Popatlal Gada
in Family Court Appeal No. 39/2023 , decided on 10.11.2025,
wherein it has been observed that a businessman's family expenses
and lifestyle need not be funded by his 'income', it may in fact,
constitute the expenditure of the businesses. An expense incurred
8 WP2210.23.odt
in enjoyment could be charged to the business, more particularly in
a corporate company when the Director is a globe-totter travelling
to various international locations. In the said case, the Division
Bench of this Court at Principal Seat enhanced the amount of
maintenance from Rs.50,000/- per month to Rs.3,50,000/- per
month. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the
respondent, the petition has no merit and deserves to be dismissed.
13. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as
well as the learned counsel for the respondent and having gone
through the impugned order, it is necessary to see what is the
criteria for granting maintenance pedente lite under Section 24 of
the Act of 1955. It will be appropriate to reproduce Section 24 of
the Act of 1955, which reads as under :
"24. Maintenance pendente lite and expenses of
proceedings.-
Where in any proceeding under this Act it
appears to the court that either the wife or the
husband, as the case may be, has no independent
income sufficient for her or his support and the
necessary expenses of the proceeding, it may, on
the application of the wife or the husband, order
the respondent to pay to the petitioner the
expenses of the proceeding, and monthly during
the proceeding such sum as, having regard to the
petitioner's own income and the income of the
9 WP2210.23.odt
respondent, it may seem to the court to be
reasonable:
Provided that the application for the
payment of the expenses of the proceeding and
such monthly sum during the proceeding, shall, as
far as possible, be disposed of within sixty days
from the date of service of notice on the wife or the
husband, as the case may be.
14. Section 24 of the Act of 1955 provides that the Court
can pass the order of interim maintenance and award expenses of
the proceedings in favour of the husband or the wife. If the
husband or the wife do not have an independent income to support
themselves, the interim maintenance and expenses of the
proceedings are to be fixed, having regard to the income of the
spouse.
15. On the other hand, Section 25 of the Act of 1955
provides for grant of maintenance in the nature of permanent
alimony at the time of culmination of the proceedings. Section 25
reads as under :
"25. Permanent alimony and maintenance.-
(1)Any court exercising jurisdiction under this Act
may, at the time of passing any decree or at any time
subsequent thereto, on application made to it for the
purpose by either the wife or the husband, as the case
may be, order that the respondent shall *** pay to the
10 WP2210.23.odt
applicant for her or his maintenance and support such
gross sum or such monthly or periodical sum for a
term not exceeding the life of the applicant as, having
regard to the respondent's own income and other
property, if any, the income and other property of the
applicant , the conduct of the parties and other
circumstances of the case, it may seem to the court to
be just, and any such payment may be secured, if
necessary, by a charge on the immovable property of
the respondent.
(2) If the court is satisfied that there is a change in the
circumstances of either party at any time after it has
made an order under sub-section (1), it may at the
instance of either party, vary, modify or rescind any
such order in such manner as the court may deem
just.
(3) If the court is satisfied that the party in whose
favour an order has been made under this section has
re-married or, if such party is the wife, that she has
not remained chaste, or, if such party is the husband,
that he has had sexual intercourse with any woman
outside wedlock, it may at the instance of the other
party vary, modify or rescind any such order in such
manner as the court may deem just."
16. Under Section 25 of the Act of 1955, the wife would be
entitled to get alimony depending upon the income of the husband
as well as his assets and property.
17. The distinction between the law laid down under
Sections 24 and 25 of the Act of 1955 is unambiguous and clear.
Section 24 uses the word "income" whereas, Section 25 uses the
11 WP2210.23.odt
words "income and property" both. While considering the quantum
of interim maintenance under Section 24 of the Act of 1955, it is
only the income and not the property or the capital source which
are to be considered. Interim maintenance under Section 24 of the
Act of 1955 is decided based on affidavits of the parties alone and
the amount would be granted for maintenance of the applicant for
his/her support as well as for necessary expenses of the
proceedings. Thus, the ambit of Section 24 of the Act of 1955 is
narrower than Section 25 of the Act of 1955.
18. In the decision in the case of Ritula Singh (supra), relied
upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court in
paragraphs 10 and 11 has observed as under :
"10. The distinction between the law laid down under
sections 24 and 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act is distinct
and clear. It is so because of the specific circumstances
that the Court would require to see at the time of each
of these applications. It may be clarified that for
considering the application for interim maintenance
under section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, which is
decided upon affidavits of the parties alone, the Court
cannot and would not consider the precise income,
standard of living, conduct of the parties, other
properties and other circumstances of the case. The
amount that would have to be granted for the
maintenance of the wife would be for her support and
necessary expenses of the proceedings. That amount
would be granted if she does not have income sufficient
12 WP2210.23.odt
for her support and necessary expenses of the
proceedings. The ambit for grant of interim maintenance
under section 24 is, therefore, far narrower than the
ambit under section 25. It is the distinction between the
two sections which is required to be understood for the
Court to grant the maintenance amounts thereunder."
11. Under section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act as
aforesaid, the entire evidence relating to the income,
properties of both the parties and their conduct and
circumstances would be and can be seen. That is
because the evidence is led in that behalf at the time of
final hearing."
19. A reference can also be made to the decision of the Delhi
High Court in the case of Shakti Pershad (supra) relied upon by the
learned counsel for the petitioner, wherein, in paragraph 9 it has
been observed thus :
"9. Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act provides
establishment of two essential conditions to enable the
court to pass an order of pendente lite maintenance
and award the expenses of the proceeding in favour of
the husband or wife. These are that the husband or
wife does not have independent income to support
him/her and that the interim maintenance and the
expenses of the proceedings are to be fixed having
regard to the income of both the spouses. In the
divorce petition the respondent wife has indeed
alleged that the petitioner husband is not running any
business. His factory has closed down. The bank from
which loan was taken for the factory had started
proceeding for its recovery before the Debt Recovery
Tribunal. The money has not been paid. It is further
alleged by her that the petitioner had stopped giving
13 WP2210.23.odt
her money for meeting the household expenses since
1994. The petitioner, however, in his reply has
submitted that he did not have income since 1998.
Certain more facts are worth noticing. The petitioner
husband belonged to a very rich family of Delhi, He
owns ancestral property in Old Delhi and also owned a
big house in Friends Colony East. Anyhow owning
property itself will not make the petitioner saddle him
with the liability to pay the maintenance under Section
24. The petitioner would be liable to pay if he has
income. The word 'income' used in this Section 24 of
the Act is of widest amplitude. The income may be in
cash or kind but it has to be an accrual from the
movable or immovable assets. It will definitely not
include the immovable or movable property itself. For
instance the wages, salary, interest or dividend,
agricultural produce of a land, the fruits from fruit
bearing tree or orchard, the rent from the house, etc.
will be income. Section 24 uses the word "income"
juxtaposed the words 'income and property' used in
Section 25 of the Act. The income and the property or
capital assets, as such, are not one and the same thing
A spouse may own huge immovable properties of
immense value but if there is no yield or accrual of
interest or rent they would not be reckoned for
calculating the amount of maintenance. But if the
spouse has money in its hand may be by the sale
proceeds of any immovable or movable property which
he or she is using for meeting the personal expenses or
the expenses of the household then that could certainly
be taken into account. Shares or bonds may not be
included in the term income but what was yielded in
the shape of dividend or interest would become
income. This view finds support from the judgment of
the Calcutta High Court in Gita Chatterjee v. Probhat
Kumar Chatterjee, AIR 1988 Calcutta 83 and Kerala
High Court in Hema v. S. Lakshmana Bhat, AIR-1986
14 WP2210.23.odt
Kerala 130"
20. In the decision of the Calcutta High Court in the case of
Gita Chatterjee (supra) in paragraphs 3 and 6, the Court has
observed thus :
"3. It is generally said that income is an expression of
elastic ambit, a word of the broadest connotation, a
term difficult to define in any precise general formula.
But even in its widest amplitude, the expression, in our
view, cannot take within its sweep the capital assets like
lands and hereditaments and can only include the
return accruing from those assets. Fruits of the tree are
income, but not the tree; crops from the field are
income, but not field, rents from land or house are
income, but not the land or the house. Even our law
relating to taxes on income, with its far-flung and ever-
widening tentacles, has not covered capital assets for
which a separate law relating to wealth-taxes had to be
enacted. It is true that by an artificial definition, our
Income-tax law has brought within the ambit of income,
not the capital assets, but only the capital gains, i.e.,
profits or gains arising from the transfer of capital
assets. But it is not the case of the husband that the wife
has transferred any of those lands and has earned or is
earning any income in the shape of capital gains.
6. As is obvious from the scheme of the Hindu
Marriage Act, the Legislature in enacting Section
24 intended to provide for some interim ad hoc relief
to the applicant spouse during the carriage of the
proceeding to enable such spouse to prosecute or
contest the proceeding. In making such an interim
order, which is to operate only during the continuance
of the proceeding, the Legislature is not expected to
require the Court to prepare a balance sheet, so to say,
15 WP2210.23.odt
of all the income and also of other capital assets and
properties of the parties and that is why the
Legislature has deliberately used the word income only
and has required the Court to have regard only to the
income of the parties. In making an order of
permanent alimony, as under Section 25 of the Act,
which would remain operative for the whole life of the
petitioner, the Court should obviously be required to
have regard not only to the income but also all other
assets and properties of the parties. That is
why Section 25, Hindu Marriage Act, dealing with
permanent alimony clearly provides that :
"the respondent shall pay to the applicant for her or
his maintenance and support such gross sum or such
monthly or periodical sum as, having regard to the
respondent's own income and other property, if any
the income and other property of the applicant, the
conduct of the parties and other circumstances of the
case, it may seem to the Court to be just".
21. Thus, the law with regard to grant of interim
maintenance under Section 24 of the Act of 1955 can be culled out
as under :
"While considering interim maintenance, the Court has
to see whether the applicant earns any independent income
sufficient for his/her support and expenses of the proceedings. If
he or she has no independent income for his/her support, then the
Court can grant maintenance pendente lite to the applicant by
considering the income of their spouse. No idle property which
does not generate any income or capital assets can be considered
16 WP2210.23.odt
for this purpose, since Section 24 of the Act of 1955 is limited to
income. The amount of maintenance is to be decided on the basis
of pleadings, documents and affidavits of assets and liabilities.
22. This takes me to the submission of the learned counsel
for the petitioner that the respondent is earning Rs.20,000/- per
month from her catering business, which is being run by her
brother. Reliance has been placed on a voice recording of the
respondent with a customer about providing catering services for a
marriage reception. A copy of the licence of the catering business
has been placed on record which shows that the business licence is
in the name of the respondent. After separation, the respondent is
residing with her brother since 2019. The brother of the
respondent runs a catering business. Therefore, a voice recording
between a customer and the respondent regarding providing
catering services cannot be said to be a proof of the fact that it is
the respondent who runs the business, in absence of any direct
evidence. Since, the respondent is residing at the mercy of her
brother at his house, she might have interacted with customers in
absence of her brother to provide a helping hand. On the basis of
that, it cannot be said at this stage that the catering business is
being run by the respondent. This aspect can be considered during
17 WP2210.23.odt
trial on merits on the touchstone of cross-examination and at this
stage, in absence of any direct proof, it cannot be said to be a
business run by the respondent.
23. The next point of consideration is the income of the
petitioner. The Income Tax Returns produced on record by the
petitioner reveal that his average yearly income is around Rs.20
lakhs. It is a matter of record, rather the documents produced by
the petitioner reveal that he has a stake to the extent of 90% or
more in various companies like Amrapali Bar and Restaurant ; M/s
212 Biltmore Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. ; Breakers Gamble LLP ; DE Fair
Homes Pvt. Ltd., Motel Amrapali Pvt. Ltd., New Nagpur Developers
& Builders Pvt. Ltd. ; M/s Storey Builders & Developers ; Suman
Ferro Alloys Pvt. Ltd. etc. Thus, it appears that apart from the
income shown in his individual returns of income, the petitioner
has handsome income from the companies to pay the maintenance
amount to the respondent. Therefore, it can not be believed that
the petitioner has an average income of Rs.20 lakhs per annum
only, which he has shown in his individual Income Tax Returns.
This income is dehors of the other capital assets which do not
generate income.
18 WP2210.23.odt
24. Now, let us come to the aspect of support which the wife
would require during pendency of the proceedings and necessary
expenses of the proceedings. This is a case of interim maintenance;
the evidence is yet to be recorded in the matter and all these
aspects can be crystalized during trial before the Family Court. At
this stage, while granting interim maintenance, some amount of
guesswork needs to be done to determine the amount that would
be sufficient for the applicant to sustain himself/herself during
pendency of the proceedings. In the affidavit of assets and
liabilities, the respondent has shown her expenses to the tune Rs. 5
lakhs per month, however, no breakup of her expenses is given.
Considering the essential needs of the respondent/wife and taking
a judicial note of the prices of essential commodities, in my view
she would require not more than Rs.2,500/- per day towards
support for her.
25. So far as the decision in the case of Purvi Mukesh Gada
(supra) is concerned, the Division Bench of this Court enhanced the
amount of maintenance from Rs.50,000/- per month to
Rs.3,50,000/- per month in respect of the maintenance granted by
the Family Court at the culmination of the trial and not
maintenance pendente lite. The case in hand is different from the
19 WP2210.23.odt
case referred above for the reason that here the question is with
regard to interim maintenance granted during the pendency of the
petition before the Family Court. Though, the said arrangement
was made by the High Court till disposal of the appeal, the said
maintenance was towards monthly permanent alimony granted by
the Family Court and not interim maintenance under Section 24 of
the Act of 1995. Therefore, in my view, this decision is hardly of
any help to the wife.
26. To conclude, no doubt the petitioner has more than
sufficient income as referred above. However, considering the
scope of Section 24 of the Act of 1955 which speaks about support
to the spouse during pendency of the petition, coupled with the fact
that the husband is taking care of his two children including the
expenses of their education which they are pursuing abroad ; in my
view, an amount of Rs.2,500/- per day which comes to Rs.75,000/-
per month would be just and proper to support the respondent
during the pendency of the petition. The amount of Rs.25,000/-
granted by the Family Court towards litigation charges is just and
proper. Therefore, the impugned order is required to be modified
to the said extent.
20 WP2210.23.odt
27. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is partly allowed.
i] The impugned order dated 13.03.2023 passed by the
learned Judge, Family Court No.3, Nagpur on application (Exh.12)
in Petition No. A-42/2021 is modified as under :-
ii] The amount of maintenance @ Rs.1,00,000/- per month
granted by Family Court no.3, Nagpur is reduced to Rs.75,000/- per
month.
iii] The petitioner shall pay maintenance @ Rs.75,000/-
(Rupees Seventy Five thousand only) per month to respondent-wife
from the date of application i.e. 18.04.2021 till disposal of the main
petition.
iv] The order in respect of payment of Rs.25,000/- as
expenses towards proceedings is maintained.
v] The amount deposited by the petitioner in this Court is
allowed to be withdrawn by the respondent.
vi] The observations made in this order are prima facie in
nature to the extent of deciding interim maintenance under Section
24 of the Act of 1955.
28. The petition stands disposed of the aforesaid terms. Rule
accordingly.
(M.W.Chandwani,J.)
Diwale
Signed by: DIWALE
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 11/04/2026 18:45:56
