4-WP-16211-2025 (C).doc Shubhada S Kadam IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 16211 OF 2025 Snehal Chandrashekar Jangde ...Petitioner/s Versus Chandrashekhar Arvind Jangde ...Respondent/s _________________________________________________________________ Mr. Mateen Shaikh along with Mr. Bharat Borkar, Mr. Hassan Siddiqui and Ms. Muskan Shaikh, Advocate for Petitioner. Ms. Arzoo Yasin Mujawar, Advocate for the Respondent (through VC). _________________________________________________________________ CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J. DATE : 31st AUGUST, 2026. P.C. : 1. The challenge in this petition is to the impugned order dated 10th April 2025, passed below Exhibit-21 in Petition No.A-2119 of 2021 by learned Judge, Family Court No.3, Pune, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act for interim maintenance is rejected. 2. It is contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent-husband earns a salary of 2,90,000/- per month. The ₹ petitioner had candidly mentioned in her maintenance application that she was working as a teacher and earning 4,000/- per month but had ₹ monthly expenses of 20,000/- for house rent, 1,500/- for electricity ₹ ₹ bills, 30,000/- for grocery, fruits, and vegetables, 15,000/- for medical ₹ ₹ SHUBHADA SHANKAR KADAM Digitally signed by SHUBHADA SHANKAR KADAM Date: 2026.09.03 12:10:48 +0530 4-WP-16211-2025 (C).doc Shubhada S Kadam and travel expenses, 4,000/- for maid, and 15,000/- for other essential ₹ ₹ needs, totalling to 80,500/- per month. The petitioner claimed ₹ maintenance on the said grounds. However, learned Judge rejected the maintenance application on the ground that the petitioner might be earning more than 4,000/- from her teaching profession and that no one ₹ is dependent on the petitioner, whereas the respondent is maintaining the daughter. Learned counsel submitted that the impugned order is erroneous, and requested to allow the petition. 3. It is contention of learned counsel for the respondent-husband that the petitioner is well qualified, she is engaged in teaching profession and earns a handsome amount therefrom. The petitioner has filed affidavit of assets and liabilities but without annexing relevant documents and has not provided correct details in her affidavit. Learned Judge has passed a well-reasoned order and no interference is required in it, and requested to dismiss the petition. 4. I have heard both learned counsel, perused the impugned order. It is the petitioner's claim that the respondent-husband earns 2,90,000/- ₹ per month, whereas it is the respondent-husband's claim that the petitioner wife is well qualified and earns a handsome amount from her teaching profession. While rejecting the maintenance application, learned Judge 4-WP-16211-2025 (C).doc Shubhada S Kadam observed that the petitioner has not produced any document regarding her income, as per the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha and anr. (2021) 2 SCC 324. 5. It is not convincing that the petitioner is earning only 4,000/- ₹ per month from her teaching profession. The affidavit of the petitioner reflects that the respondent is earning 1,63,624/- per month. However, it ₹ cannot be ignored that the respondent is maintaining the daughter, whereas no one is dependent on the petitioner. Learned Judge has further observed that the petitioner neither signed the application at Exhibit-21 nor disclosed her income correctly in her affidavit of assets and liabilities and, in such circumstances, she is not entitled to interim maintenance. On that ground, the learned Judge has rejected the interim maintenance application. 6. In my view, the learned Judge, ought to have decided the application on merits. However, the learned Judge has passed the order on the basis of assumptions. I find this to be a fit case to remand the application filed by the petitioner for interim maintenance for fresh hearing, after giving an opportunity of hearing to both parties. Page 3 of 4 4-WP-16211-2025 (C).doc Shubhada S Kadam 7. In view of the above, I pass following order: O R D E R a) The petition is partly allowed. b) The impugned order dated 10th April 2025, passed below Exhibit-21 in Petition No.A-2119 of 2021 by learned Judge, Family Court No.3, Pune, is quashed and set aside. c) The matter is remanded back to the Family Court for fresh hearing. d) The learned Family Judge shall hear the interim maintenance application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act of the petitioner afresh by giving an opportunity of hearing to both parties, and shall decide the same on its own merits. e) The learned Judge shall decide the application as early as possible. The petition stands disposed of in above terms. (SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)