[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Vinita W/O Anand Bagde And Anr vs Anand S/O Udhavji Bagde on 17 March, 2026
2026:BHC-NAG:4429
1 1.cri.wp.J.204.2025.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 204 OF 2025
1. Vinita w/o Anand Bagde, aged about 41 years,
Occ. Household,
2. Master Ayush s/o Anand Bagde, through
Natural Guardian Mother (Vanita w/o Anand
Bagde) aged about 14 years, Occ. Student.
Both 1 and 2 r/o Plot No.263-B, Dixit Nagar,
Samdev, Nari Road, Nagpur.
... PETITIONERS
VERSUS
1. Anand s/o Udhavji Bagde, aged about 47
years, Occ. Service, r/o 47, Vaishali Nagar,
Near Trust Office, Nagpur. Presently at Officer
Colony, MINE, Tirodi, Balaghat, Madhya
Pradesh.
... RESPONDENT
_____________________________________________________________
Shri Ayush Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri R.P. Kothari, Advocate for respondent.
______________________________________________________________
CORAM: M.M. NERLIKAR, J.
DATE :17.03.2026.
JUDGMENT :
1. RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith.
2 1.cri.wp.J.204.2025.odt
2. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties.
3. In the present petition, the petitioners who are the wife and
son of the respondent are challenging the judgment and order dated
10.09.2024 passed by the Family Court No.3, Nagpur in Criminal Misc.
Application No.60/2015 and prayed for enhancement of maintenance
amount.
4. Initially, the petitioners had filed Petition E.No.210/2009
before the Family Court No.4, Nagpur seeking maintenance under
Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ('CrPC'), which came to
be allowed vide order dated 01.03.2013 thereby granting maintenance
of Rs.3000/- per month to the wife and Rs.2000/- per month to the
son. This order was challenged by the wife before this Court by filing
Criminal Revision Application No.89/2013, which came to be partly
allowed and the maintenance amount was modified to Rs.5000/- per
month each to the petitioners from the date of application, i.e.
30.06.2009. Thereafter also, the petitioner wife has filed Criminal Misc.
Application No.60/2015 claiming enhancement of maintenance
amount, which came to be partly allowed, thereby modifying the earlier
order and granting maintenance of Rs.8000/- per month to the wife
and son, each, from 01.01.2021 to 31.08.2024. Further from
01.09.2024, the Family Court Nagpur granted an amount of
3 1.cri.wp.J.204.2025.odt
Rs.12,000/- per month each to the petitioners vide order dated
10.09.2024, which is challenged before this Court by submitting that
the Trial Court has grossly erred in not considering the educational and
other expenses.
5. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submit that the
maintenance amount which was granted by the Trial Court is nowhere
comparable to the monthly income of the respondent husband.
Reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the
case of Kalyan Dey Chowdhury vs. Rita Dey Chowdhury Nee Nandy
(2017) 14 SCC 200, wherein it is held that 25% of the husband's net
income would be just and proper to be awarded as maintenance. The
amount of permanent alimony awarded to the wife must be befitting
the status of the parties and the capacity of the spouse to pay
maintenance, this aspect has been ignored by the Family Court. The
salary slip of the respondent husband for the month of June, 2024
shows that the respondent husband is getting salary of Rs.1,68,000/-
however the Court has granted only Rs.12,000/- per month each to the
petitioners and therefore, the Trial Court has failed to take into
consideration the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
aforestated case. In order to frustrate the claim of the petitioners the
respondent husband has availed loans from the Bank, which cannot be
4 1.cri.wp.J.204.2025.odt
considered as only statutory deductions are permissible to be
considered for calculating net salary income of the respondent
husband. Medical expenses of the petitioner no.2 has also not been
considered as the son is suffering from sinusitis and the expense
receipts were already placed on record to that effect. Further, petitioner
no.2 is studying in the 9th standard, and next year he will appear for
10th standard examinations, and therefore, educational expenses will
increase and this aspect has also not been considered by the Trial
Court. Therefore, learned Counsel for the petitioners pray to allow the
petition by granting maintenance as claimed by the petitioners.
6. On the other hand learned Counsel for the respondent
husband opposes the petition by submitting that petitioner wife is
highly educated. She is holding M.A. B.Ed. Degree and earning
handsome amount from running tuition classes. The documents are
placed on record to that effect and submitted that an educated woman
cannot sit idle and therefore, she is not entitled for enhancement of
maintenance amount. Though the respondent husband has not
challenged the impugned order however it cannot be ignored that
already maintenance amount is exorbitant which was granted to the
petitioners. The net income of the respondent husband is only
Rs.41,801/- as he has availed loans and huge deductions are being
5 1.cri.wp.J.204.2025.odt
made because he has to pay EMIs on his loan. Even the parents of the
respondent are dependent on him, therefore expense of Rs.20,000/- is
required to be spent on them. It is also submitted that already in
Domestic Violence Proceeding, the respondent husband is paying
Rs.5,000/- per month to the petitioner wife as house rent. Both the
parties have placed on record an affidavit of assets and liabilities
wherein net salary of the respondent is shown as Rs.41,801/- after
deductions, therefore, it is very difficult to pay the amount which has
been granted by the Family Court in the impugned order. Despite
aforesaid, the respondent husband is regularly paying monthly
maintenance granted by the Trial Court to the petitioners and
therefore, as there is no merit in the petition, the same deserves to be
rejected.
7. I have considered the rival submissions and gone through
the record. It appears that at present both the petitioners are getting
total Rs.24,000/- per months as maintenance. No doubt, petitioner wife
is an educated lady however, she is unable to find a job and she is
continuously taking efforts to secure a job by appearing in several
competitive exams however she has not been successful. However this
Court is of the opinion that she cannot sit idle and depend wholly on
her husband. She has to search for an alternative job. A well educated
6 1.cri.wp.J.204.2025.odt
wife ought not to remain idle who has the earning capacity.
8. Therefore, considering the evidence placed on record, I am
not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment and order
regarding petitioner no.1 wife as she is getting monthly maintenance of
Rs.12,000/- per month and Rs.5,000/- for house rent. So far as
petitioner no.2 son is concerned, it is an admitted fact that today the
educational expenses are exorbitant and therefore, it is the duty of the
father to incur educational expenses of his son. In the entire impugned
judgment and order there is no discussion about the educational
expenses. Right from the admission fees, there are several expenses like
for books, uniform, school program fees, tuition fees, etc., which have
to be considered as the petitioner no.2 son is studying in 9 th standard
and next year he will go to 10 th standard. Therefore in my opinion
Rs.12,000/- per month is not sufficient in order to maintain petitioner
no.2. In the salary slip of the respondent, there are many deductions
shown under several heads, however the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Dr. Kulbhushan Kumar vs. Smt. Raj Kumari (1970) 3 SCC 129
has held that only compulsory statutory deductions as income tax can
be reduced from the gross salary. No deduction is permissible for
payment of LIC, home loan, installments towards payment of loan for
purchasing land or premium of policy of insurance. Therefore, after
7 1.cri.wp.J.204.2025.odt
going through the salary slip, I tried to calculate the statutory
deductions and net salary of the respondent husband approximately
comes to Rs.1,38,678/-. It is further to be noted that the petitioner wife
is already getting Rs.5,000/- as house rent in the DV proceedings and
so also, Rs.12,000/- in present proceedings. Therefore, considering the
exposition of law, entire expenses and maintenance amount, it would
be just and proper to enhance the maintenance amount of petitioner
no.2 son from Rs.12,000/- to Rs.17,000/- per month, which in my
opinion is sufficient to maintain the petitioner no.2 Son. Hence I pass
the following order :
(a) The petition is partly allowed.
(b) The impugned judgment and order is modified to the extent
of petitioner no.2 son only. The enhanced amount of
Rs.17,000/- to petitioner no. 2 shall be paid from
10.09.2024.
9. The Petition stands disposed of accordingly. Rule is made
absolute in the above terms.
(M.M. NERLIKAR, J.)
Trupti
Signed by: Trupti D. Agrawal
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 17/03/2026 18:45:05
