35-FCAST.37627.2025w.ia(1).doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FAMILY COURT APPEAL (STAMP) NO.37627 OF 2025 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO.38787 OF 2025 (FOR INTERIM MAINTENANCE) IN FAMILY COURT APPEAL(STAMP) NO.37627 OF 2025 Trupti Hukmichand Khandelwal Age about 40 years, Occ.- Household R/at - C/O Shobha Govind Sharma ‘Jashodha Enclave’, 4th Floor S. No.222/223, Narayan Peth Pune - 411030 Mobile No. (+91) 7721904227 Email Id - truptikhandelwal04@gmail.com …Appellant/Applicant Versus Hukmichand Prakash Khandelwal Age-39 years, Occ.- Service R/at - 505, 4th Floor Flat No. 15, ‘Gurukrupa’ Co-op Hsg. Soc. Guruwar Peth, Pune - 411042 Mobile No. (+91) 9970277737 Email Id - hitukhandelwal04@gmail.com …Respondent Mr. Pratik Date for the Appellant/Applicant-Wife Mr. Rajender Singh Saluja with Mr. Balraj Nishad for the Respondent- Husband. N. S. Chitnis 1/13 NISHA SANDEEP CHITNIS Digitally signed by NISHA SANDEEP CHITNIS Date: 2026.08.07 17:01:20 +0530 35-FCAST.37627.2025w.ia(1).doc CORAM: BHARATI DANGRE & MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE : 31st JULY 2026 JUDGMENT (Per Manjusha Deshpande, J.) : 1. This interim application has been filed by the appellant- wife for grant of interim maintenance to the tune of Rs.75,000/- per month to the appellant from the date of the application and costs of litigation of Rs.2,00,000/- to be awarded in her favour, pending the final disposal of the Family Court Appeal filed by her. 2. Upon hearing the Appeal on 7th January 2026, while issuing notice the order passed by the learned Judge, Family Court No.2, Pune, in Marriage Petition No.A-810 of 2023 and Petition No.E-65 of 2023 is stayed only to the extent of grant of divorce. Being aggrieved by the common judgment passed by the Family Court, Pune dated 12th August 2025, in Marriage Petition No.A-810 of 2023 and Petition No.E-65 of 2023, the present Family Court Appeal has been filed by the appellant-wife, by which she was denied maintenance and inadequate maintenance has been awarded to N. S. Chitnis 2/13 35-FCAST.37627.2025w.ia(1).doc the minor son-Aarav. The brief facts as pleaded by the appellant are that:- (i) The marriage between the parties was solemnized at Pune, as per Hindu rites on 26th April 2012; (ii) A son viz. Aarav was born out of marriage on 12th May 2014; (iii) The respondent has driven out of their house the appellant and their minor son on 23rd February 2023; (iv) The appellant filed Petition for Maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) viz. Petition No.E-65 of 2023, before the Family Court, Pune on 15th April 2023; (v) The respondent-husband filed a Petition for divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and for the custody of the minor child under Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act against the appellant-wife in Family Court, Pune; (vi) The Family Court, Pune passed an order on the application for interim maintenance directing the respondent to pay Rs.15,000/- per month to the appellant and Rs.5,000/- per month to their minor son, towards their maintenance vide order dated 9th July 2024; N. S. Chitnis 3/13 35-FCAST.37627.2025w.ia(1).doc (vii) The respondent had filed an affidavit in lieu of Examination-in- Chief in Divorce proceedings filed by him on 9th July 2024; (viii) The advocate for the appellant conducted cross-examination of the respondent on 10th March 2025, after which the respondent closed his evidence and the matter was posted for evidence of the appellant in divorce proceedings; (ix) The appellant also filed her affidavit in lieu of Examination-in- Chief in the maintenance proceedings. At this stage the learned Judge of the Family Court, Pune, clubbed both the proceedings i.e. the divorce and the maintenance proceedings for the purpose of recording of the evidence; (x) On the basis of the evidence led by the parties, the learned Judge of the Family Court, Pune, has been pleased to pass an common Judgment in both the proceedings, thereby allowing the petition for Divorce dissolving the marriage between the parties under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act. The joint custody of the Master Aarav, is given to the parties. However, physical custody is retained with the mother i.e. the appellant with free access to the respondent- N. S. Chitnis 4/13 35-FCAST.37627.2025w.ia(1).doc father. So far as the maintenance application is concerned, the respondent-husband has been directed to pay Rs.10,000/- per month towards maintenance of Master Aarav from the date of application, till he attains age of majority, whereas, the claim of maintenance of the appellant-wife, has been rejected. 3. The learned counsel Mr. Pratik Date appearing for the appellant-wife submits that, though of issue of maintenance has been framed by the learned Judge of the Family Court, there is no reasoning recorded by the Family Court to refuse maintenance to the appellant. The only reason recorded is that during the cross-examination the appellant had admitted that there was one flat at Erandwane, Pune, jointly registered in the name of her mother and herself, which fetched rent of Rs.15,000/- per month. This admission is relied on to hold that the appellant is having sufficient means to maintain herself. It is submitted that although the Affidavit of Assets and Liabilities have been placed on record by both the parties, the contents of the affidavits so filed, has not been gone into by the learned Judge N. S. Chitnis 5/13 35-FCAST.37627.2025w.ia(1).doc of the Family Court who has passed a cryptic order without discussing the assets and liabilities of either of the parties. As a result of the cryptic order, she has been denied the maintenance. It is submitted that infact during pendency of proceedings while passing interim order of maintenance, the learned Judge of the Family Court has awarded Rs.15,000/- per month to the appellant and Rs.5,000/- per month to their minor son, by observing that, the appellant has no source of income and assuming that the income of respondent was around Rs.90,000/- per month. A specific submission is made that on 8th May 2025, the appellant had filed her Affidavit in lieu of Examination-in-Chief in the Petition for Divorce only to the extent of the Divorce proceedings. Since, both the proceedings were clubbed together by the Family Court on 8th April 2025, at the instance of the Court the appellant had proceeded only with one of the two Chief Affidavits and did not lead evidence in both the cases. Since her affidavit filed in the Petition for Maintenance was more elaborate and containing details relating to maintenance, she had not pressed the Affidavit in lieu of Examination- N. S. Chitnis 6/13 35-FCAST.37627.2025w.ia(1).doc in-Chief in the Petition for Divorce and decided to proceed with her evidence in the Petition for Maintenance. Accordingly, appellant has filed her evidence close pursis in Divorce proceedings on 9th June 2025, reserving her right to lead evidence in maintenance case separately. It is submitted that, on that very day the Advocate for the respondent cross-examined the Appellant on the basis of her Affidavit in lieu of Examination-in-Chief filed in Petition for Maintenance. During her cross-examination, the learned Judge of the Family Court had committed error in recording one of her depositions, therefore she immediately filed an application to correct the error, however, her application has been turned down and the matter was directly posted for Final Hearing, consequently denying her an opportunity to lead evidence. It is submitted that, the learned Judge has committed an error by not directing the respondent-husband to file his Affidavit in lieu of Examination-in-Chief in support of his pleadings, against the claim of maintenance of the appellant-wife, resulting in denial to cross- N. S. Chitnis 7/13 35-FCAST.37627.2025w.ia(1).doc examine him by the appellant. This, according to the appellant is a grave error which has resulted in depriving her of valuable rights. Consequently, there is no reasoned order after discussing the evidence lead by the parties, insofar as, maintenance to the appellant-wife is concerned. It is therefore, submitted that the interim application for maintenance filed by the appellant-wife deserves to be allowed by granting her maintenance at the rate of Rs.75,000/- per month, after taking into consideration the income of the respondent-husband which is reflected in the Affidavit of Assets and Liabilities filed by him. 4. Per Contra the learned counsel Mr. Rajender Singh Saluja appearing for the respondent-husband would submit that, the appellant has not come before this Court with clean hands and has suppressed that, she had filed simultaneously D.V. proceeding, after the judgment has been delivered by the Family Court, she has been successful in getting an amount of Rs.10,000/- per month towards interim maintenance to her from 12th August 2025 vide order dated 1st January 2026, by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court N. S. Chitnis 8/13 35-FCAST.37627.2025w.ia(1).doc No.4, Pune. He would further submit that the learned Judge of the Family Court has framed issue about maintenance and has also passed a well-reasoned order after considering the source of income of the appellant. So far as the child-Aarav is concerned, his physical custody has already been retained with the appellant, and he has been awarded an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards his maintenance. Thus, according to him, after carefully going through the evidence of both the parties, the issue of maintenance has been answered by the learned Judge. Thus, at this stage, the interim application filed by the appellant-wife does not deserve any consideration. 5. We have heard the respective parties and gone through the documents placed on record along with the Family Court Appeal as well as the Interim Application. In the wake of an interim order granting maintenance to the appellant-wife, which has been refused in the final order we have considered the present pleadings in the interim application for maintenance, pending the Family Court Appeal, along N. S. Chitnis 9/13 35-FCAST.37627.2025w.ia(1).doc with the impugned judgment of the Family Court. Since arguments have been advanced by the appellant contending that an opportunity to lead the evidence has been denied to her insofar as, her petition for maintenance is concerned, we find that issues have been framed in Petition No.E-65 of 2023 about entitlement of maintenance to the appellant and Master Aarav. However, as a result of curtailment of the proceedings by the learned Judge of the Family Court without any Affidavit in lieu of Examination-in-Chief of the respondent-husband in the petition for maintenance filed by wife, the learned Judge has proceeded to pass the judgment in case of the petition for maintenance in a hasty manner. As a result, we do not find any recording of reasoning by the learned Judge, on the issue of entitlement for maintenance by the appellant. The only reason for refusal of maintenance appears to be the joint ownership of flat, which fetches rent of Rs.15,000/- per month. This rent is treated as her income to deny her maintenance. In our view, this order suffers from inadequacy of reasoning on the issue of maintenance in the common judgment passed by the Family Court. Inspite of filing of Affidavit of N. S. Chitnis 10/13 35-FCAST.37627.2025w.ia(1).doc Assets and Liabilities and other evidence led by both the parties, the learned Judge has not taken into consideration the contents of these affidavits and the accompanying documents to record his findings on the issue of maintenance framed by him. In the landmark decision in the case of Rajnesh vs. Neha and Another1, the Hon’ble the Apex Court has laid down the guidelines while granting maintenance for bringing consistency and uniformity in cases of maintenance. The elaborate judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court has taken into consideration all the enactments containing provision for maintenance and also the judgments governing the issue of maintenance pronounced upon by various High Courts as well as the Apex Court. This judgment contains the various factors to be taken into account while granting maintenance. We find that these guiding principles have not been followed by the learned Judge while pronouncing upon the right of the appellant to receive maintenance. A reasoned order needs to be passed on the issue of maintenance framed by the Family Court. 1 (2021) 2 SCC 324 N. S. Chitnis 11/13 35-FCAST.37627.2025w.ia(1).doc Therefore, instead of entertaining the interim application for maintenance before this Court at this stage in our view, it would more appropriate to remand the case of the appellant-wife, only to the extent of Petition No.E-65 of 2023 for maintenance to be decided afresh on the basis of evidence already placed on record. The learned Judge, while passing the order on issue of maintenance to be awarded to the appellant, shall also take into account the maintenance already awarded to the appellant under the D.V. proceeding vide order dated 01st January 2026. The learned Judge, Family Court, shall decide the petition for maintenance, guided by the principles laid down by the Hon’ble the Apex Court in the case of Rajnesh (supra), and the evidence already placed on record by the parties, by passing a reasoned order. Hence, we pass the following order:- ORDER i) The Family Court Appeal is partly allowed; ii) Petition No.E-65 of 2023 filed by wife for maintenance is remanded back to the Family Court No.2, Pune for passing a reasoned order; N. S. Chitnis 12/13 35-FCAST.37627.2025w.ia(1).doc iii) The learned Judge of the Family Court shall take into account the maintenance awarded in the D.V. proceeding while passing the reasoned order. Family Court Appeal is accordingly disposed of. In view of the disposal of the Family Court Appeal, nothing survives for consideration in the Interim Application (for Interim Maintenance) being Interim Application No.38787 of 2025. The same is also disposed of accordingly. MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J. BHARATI DANGRE, J. N. S. Chitnis 13/13