88-WP-8594-2025 (C).doc S.S.Kilaje IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8594 OF 2025 Poonam Yogesh Kshirsagar ...Petitioner/s VERSUS Yogesh Ravindra Kshirsagar And Anr ...Respondent/s _________________________________________________________________ Ms. Shrusti Chalke i/b. Mr. Drupad Patil, for the Petitioner. Mr. Vaibhav P. Patankar i/b Patankar & Associates, for the Respondent. _________________________________________________________________ CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J. DATE : 30th SEPTEMBER, 2026. P.C. : 1. The challenge in this petition is to the order of rejection of maintenance application passed by Family Court, Pune. 2. It is contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner has no source of income whereas the respondent works in I.T. company and earns a salary of Rs.1.5 lakh per month. The learned Family Judge has dismissed the maintenance application on the ground that D.V. application of the applicant was rejected by J.M.F.C. but the said order has not been challenged by the petitioner for five years. The petitioner has stated that she has no bank accounts but respondent has produced the record to show that petitioner is having bank accounts and later on, she admitted the same. Such conduct and exaggerated facts create doubts regarding her credibility. The respondent has specifically mentioned that SONALI SATISH KILAJE Digitally signed by SONALI SATISH KILAJE Date: 2026.10.05 15:30:08 +0530 88-WP-8594-2025 (C).doc S.S.Kilaje petitioner is in service and doing business and respondent was receiving transaction alerts from SBI which was placed before the learned Family Court. The observation of the learned Judge is erroneous. Learned counsel further submitted that in the Affidavit filed before the Family Court, the petitioner had not mentioned about the two bank accounts because they were not in operation. But, this fact was not considered by the learned Judge and has passed impugned order, which is erroneous and requested to allow the petition. 3. It is contention of learned counsel for respondent that petitioner had suppressed the information about her bank accounts before the Family Court. She has an independent source of income. The learned Judge has passed well reasoned order. No interference is required in it and requested to dismiss the petition. 4. I have heard both the learned counsel. Perused impugned order and documents produced on record. It is contention of petitioner that she had not given details of two bank accounts as they were not operational. It appears from the record that petitioner had given details of the bank account after filing of application by the respondent. Learned counsel for respondent fairly submitted that he was receiving transaction alerts from SBI but that account belonged to a different person and not the petitioner but the learned Judge has considered it as one of the ground to dismiss the 88-WP-8594-2025 (C).doc S.S.Kilaje petition. It appears that learned Judge has not considered the documents produced on record properly. Hence, I find it a fit case to remand the matter for fresh hearing by giving an opportunity for both the parties to be heard and I pass following order. ORDER (i) Petition is partly allowed. (ii) The matter is remanded for fresh hearing. (iii) Both the parties shall file fresh affidavit of assets and liabilities along with details. (iv) The learned Family Judge shall decide the maintenance application as early as possible preferably within six months after receipt of this order. (SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)