901-WP-16257-2025 (c).doc S.S.Kilaje IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 16257 OF 2025 Ramesh Kumar Tavva … Petitioner VERSUS Deepti Ramesh Kumar @ Deepti Atri … Respondent _________________________________________________________________ Mr. Milind A. Ingole a/w. Mr. Rahul Prasad, Ms. Aishwarya Gaikwad, Ms.Ashwini Datar and Sarath Manari, Advocate for Applicant. Ms. Shilpa Joshi a/w. Ms. Samidha Ambekar, Ms. Bhagyashree Sawant and Ms. Sambhavi Bhosle, Advocate for Respondent. _________________________________________________________________ CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J. DATE : 8th SEPTEMBER, 2026. P.C. : 1. The challenge in this Writ Petition is to the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court, Bandra, Mumbai, below Exhibit-6, whereby the petitioner has directed to pay maintenance of Rs.35,000/- per month to wife and 50% of the educational and incidental expenses to the daughter. 2. It is contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner has superannuated from the Indian Army w.e.f. 16.02.2022 and is presently receiving the pension of Rs.80,000/- per month. The respondent/wife is employed as a Deputy Manager at General Insurance Corporation of India, having salary around Rs.1,68,000/- which is more SONALI SATISH KILAJE Digitally signed by SONALI SATISH KILAJE Date: 2026.09.11 18:16:51 +0530 901-WP-16257-2025 (c).doc S.S.Kilaje than the petitioner’s monthly income. The daughter residing with the respondent/wife. The petitioner has other financial liability. But these facts are not considered by the learned Judge, while passing impugned order directing the petitioner to pay Rs.35,000/- per month maintenance to wife and 50% of educational and incidental expenses to the daughter, which is erroneous. Learned counsel submits that the income of the respondent/wife ought to have been taken into consideration, therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set aside and requested to allow the writ petition. 3. It is contention of learned counsel for the respondent /wife that petitioner has taken voluntary retirement and he has not superannuated. The petitioner carrying business and from the said business, he earns crores of rupees. Though the respondent/wife is employed and receives a salary but after deductions she receives Rs.48,480/- in hand. She requires this amount for educational expenses of her daughter. It is submitted that, in such circumstances it is difficult for her to maintain herself and daughter in the maintenance amount i.e. Rs.35,000/-. Learned counsel further submitted that petitioner has not produced documents in respect of his income. He also receives rental income. The learned Judge has passed well reasoned order and therefore, no interference is required in it and requested to dismiss the petition. 901-WP-16257-2025 (c).doc S.S.Kilaje 4. I have heard both the learned counsel. Perused impugned order. Admittedly, petitioner is not in service and he survives on his pension. Whereas the respondent is in service and earns salary of Rs.1,68,000/- per month which is more than the petitioner. When the respondent has independent source of income then it is responsibility of both the parents to bear the expenses of child. Considering this fact, I pass following order: ORDER i. The petitioner/husband shall pay Rs. 20,000/- per month as maintenance to the daughter from the date of filing of maintenance application and shall pay half of the educational expenses of the daughter. ii. The respondent/wife shall provide access of the daughter to the petitioner as per the order of the learned Family Court. 5. Writ Petition is disposed of. All pending applications disposed off. (SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)