5-WP-12054-2025 (C).doc N.S.Kamble IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 12054 OF 2025 Rupali Chetan Masurkar ...Petitioner Versus Chetan Gajananrao Masurkar ...Respondent ____________________________________________________________ Mr.Shivraj Kunchge, for the Petitioner. Mr.Mehul Rathod i/b M/s.KVT Legal, for the Respondent. ____________________________________________________________ CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J. DATE : 10th SEPTEMBER 2026 P.C. : . The challenge in this Petition is to the impugned order passed by learned Family Court, Pune, whereby maintenance Application of the Petitioner is rejected. 2. It is contention of the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the learned Family Court has rejected the maintenance Application of the Petitioner on the ground that the Petitioner has having higher educational qualification. It is submitted that the observations of learned Judge that Petitioner was earlier employed and in order to claim maintenance from Respondent-Husband, she left her job and thereafter, sought maintenance, it is erroneous. 3. The learned counsel further submitted that the Respondent- NILAM SANTOSH KAMBLE Digitally signed by NILAM SANTOSH KAMBLE Date: 2026.09.17 10:14:56 +0530 5-WP-12054-2025 (C).doc N.S.Kamble Husband working at Tata Motors Company as Deputy General Manger and get the salary of Rs.2,50,000/- per month, whereas the Petitioner-wife has no source of income. However, this fact has not been considered by the learned Judge and passed impugned order, which is erroneous and requested to allow the Petition. 4. The learned counsel for the Respondent-Husband submitted that the Petitioner wife holds a degree in B. Pharma and was working in a company and getting salary of Rs.12,141/- per month. Thereafter, she switched the company and getting salary of Rs.16,500/- per month and subsequently, her service certificate shows that her gross salary was Rs.36,180/-. The learned counsel further submitted that the Petitioner-Wife has a sufficient source of income. The learned Family Judge has passed a well reasoned order and no interference is required in it and requested to dismiss the Petition. 5. I have heard both learned counsel. Perused impugned order. 6. While rejecting the maintenance Application of the Petitioner, the learned Judge has observed that the Petitioner-wife had left the job in order to claim maintenance. Moreover, she had not produced documents on record before Family Court as required by law, on that ground, the learned Family Judge has rejected the maintenance Application. In my view, the 5-WP-12054-2025 (C).doc N.S.Kamble learned Judge ought to have considered the fact that, at the time of filing of the maintenance application, the Petitioner-wife was jobless. The learned Judge presumed that Petitioner-wife had deliberately left her job in order to claim maintenance, it is erroneous. The learned Judge ought to have decided the Application on its own merit instead of proceeding on the basis of an assumptions. In such circumstances, I find this is a fit case to remand the matter for fresh hearing and I pass following order. ORDER (i) The Petition is allowed. (ii) The impugned order dated 20th January 2025, passed by the Family Court, Pune below Exhibit-13 in Marriage Petition No.1758 of 2021 is quashed and set aside. (iii) The matter is remanded back to Family Court, Pune for fresh hearing by giving an opportunity to both the parties. (iv) The learned Judge shall decide the maintenance Application as early as possible, preferably within six months, from the receipt of this order. (v) Both the parties shall file documents as required by law. (vi) The Criminal Application is disposed of. (SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)