1 32-revn-210-25.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 210 OF 2025 Alka W/o Sachin Nandankar Versus Sachin S/o Kashinath Nandankar WITH CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 53 OF 2026 Sachin S/o Kashinath Nandankar Versus Alka W/o Sachin Nandankar Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Order Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's order Criminal Revision No. 210 of 2025 Shri Narendra Jetha, Advocate for the applicant. Ms. Seema Dhotre, Advocate for the non-applicant. Criminal Revision No. 53 of 2026 Ms. Seema Dhotre, Advocate for the applicant. Shri Narendra Jetha, Advocate for the non-applicant. CORAM : MEHROZ K. PATHAN, J. DATED : 30th SEPTEMBER, 2026. The Criminal Revision No. 210 of 2025 is filed by the applicant/wife challenging the judgment dated 01.10.2025 passed by the learned Family Court, Nagpur which decided both the application for grant of maintenance as well as application for divorce filed by the husband, together vide impugned judgment. The divorce petition filed SKNair 2 32-revn-210-25.odt by the husband is allowed. The marriage solemnised between the husband Sachin and Alka was dissolved and the applicant/Alka was held to be entitled the maintenance of Rs.25,000/- per month from the non- applicant Sachin from the date of filing of the application i.e. 12.07.2021 till the date of passing of the order i.e. dated 01.10.2025 and thereafter at the rate of Rs.40,000/- from the date of passing of the order by the learned Family Court, Nagpur. Both the husband and wife have challenged the aforesaid common judgment dated 01.10.2025 passed by the learned Family Court, Nagpur in Divorce Petition No. A-667 of 2023 and the Maintenance Application No. E-308 of 2021. 2. Shri Jetha, learned counsel for the applicant/wife in Revision Application No. 210 of 2025 submits that applicant has prayed for award of maintenance of Rs.70,000/- per month, however, learned Family Court without taking into consideration the assets, income and liability of the non-applicant/husband has arrived at a meagre sum of Rs.40,000/- per month i.e. from the date of passing of the order i.e. 01.10.2025 not from the date of application. Shri Jetha, learned counsel further submits that the non-applicant/husband has deliberately suppressed the income salary certificate from the knowledge of the SKNair 3 32-revn-210-25.odt learned Family Court, Nagpur and the said misconduct on the part of the non-applicant has to be taken a serious note of. The learned Family Court has made a specific observations about the directions issued to the non-applicant/husband for submitting a salary certificate, however, the non-applicant/husband has deliberately suppressed the same only with an intention to deny the rightly amount of maintenance to be paid to the applicant/wife. This act on the part of the non-applicant/husband shows that the non-applicant/husband has failed to approach the Court with clean hands and therefore the adverse inference would have been drawn by the learned Family Court and the amount as prayed for by the applicant as a maintenance i.e at the rate of Rs.70,000/- should have been granted by the learned Family Court. 3. Shri Jetha, learned counsel further submits that even the amount of Rs.40,000/- per month granted by the learned Family Court is granted only from the date of passing of the order i.e. 01.10.2025 and not from the date of filing of the application i.e. 12.07.2021. He further relies on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jaiminiben Vyas and another Vs. Hirenbhai Vyas and another reported in 2015(2) SCC 385, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has SKNair 4 32-revn-210-25.odt specifically observed that if the learned trial Court while refusing to grant maintenance from the date of the application shall give specific reasons for the same and hence in the absence any reason, the order would be illegal. 4. Shri Jetha, learned counsel for the applicant further relies judgment in the case of Shahjahan Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh and another reported in 2025 INSC 528, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down specific guidelines whether the maintenance is to be granted from the date of the order or from the date of application. The Hon’ble Supreme Court after going through the plethora of the judgments cited before it, had finally come to a conclusion that there has to be some uniformity and consistency in the order passed by all the Courts and maintenance be awarded from the date on which the application was made before the Court concerned. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has further observed that the right to claim maintenance must date back to the date of filing the application, since the period during which the maintenance proceedings remained pending is not within the control of the applicant/wife. SKNair 5 32-revn-210-25.odt 5. Here in the present case, the applicant has been unjustly denied with the order of maintenance from the date of application and have been mechanically granted the maintenance only from the date of the order i.e. 01.10.2025. The impugned order is therefore unjust, arbitrary and passed in ignorance of the settled law passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment of Shahajan Vs. State of Utter Pradesh cited supra, hence, the impugned order may therefore be quashed and set aside with a direction to the non-applicant/husband to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.70,000/- per from the date of application. Therefore, he prays for setting aside the impugned order and allow the criminal application. 6. As against this Ms. Dhotre, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the non-applicant/husband in Criminal Revision No. 210 of 2025 and the applicant in Criminal Revision No. 53 of 2026, vehemently submits that the learned Family Court has wrongly granted the amount of maintenance of Rs.40,000/- per month to the non- applicant/wife. She further submits that the non-applicant/wife is well qualified lady and having applied for admission in the Bachelor of Engineering and also acquired a diploma in computer science. She SKNair 6 32-revn-210-25.odt further relies upon the observation of the learned Family Court as well as cross-examination of the non-applicant/wife, wherein she has specifically admitted to be qualified from the Bachelor of Engineering degree. Such highly qualified lady cannot sit idle and seek maintenance. Ms. Dhotre, learned counsel for the applicant/husband further relies of the judgment of this Court in the case of Vinita Bagde and another Vs. Anand Bagde passed in Criminal Writ Petition No. 204 of 2025 dated 17.03.2026 to buttress the submission that the wife who is highly qualified lady cannot sit idle and depend wholly on her husband and that she has to search for an alternative job to maintain herself. The applicant/husband who is also Bachelor of Engineer is able to earn the salary which is relied upon by the learned Family Court to grant maintenance. The applicant/wife is also equally qualified and could also earn the same salary if she looks out for a job, however, the applicant/wife has failed to apply or look out for any job, no efforts are put on record to show that any such attempts made by the applicant/wife to show that she wanted to earn livelihood for herself. Therefore, the impugned order is arbitrary and is passed ignoring such vital aspect of the matter and hence needs to be quashed and set aside. SKNair 7 32-revn-210-25.odt 7. Ms. Dhotre, learned counsel further submits that the submission of the non-applicant/wife that the grant of maintenance ought to have been granted from the date of the application, needs to be rejected at the threshold in as much as learned Family Court while granting maintenance at the rate of Rs.40,000/- per month, had specifically recorded the reasons for granting the aforesaid maintenance from the date of passing of the order i.e. 01.10.2025 and not from the date of filing of the application. Non-applicant/wife was granted maintenance at the rate of Rs.25,000/- per month from the date of application i.e. 12.07.2021 and the further remaining amount of Rs.40,000/- per month was granted from the date of passing of the order i.e. dated 01.10.2025. According to Ms. Dhotre, learned counsel, the learned Family Court has further recorded the specific observations that the salary certificate of the year 2022 was relevant for deciding the quantum of the maintenance and since over the period of three years, the increase in the salary was also considered, even though the salary certificate was not brought on record, learned Family Court has considered the increased in the salary and had decided the quantum of the final maintenance which is now decided to be at the rate of SKNair 8 32-revn-210-25.odt Rs.40,000/- per month from the date of passing of the impugned order. The impugned order granting Rs.40,000/- per month from the date of the passing of the order therefore cannot be faulted with. The specific reasons having been recorded by the learned Family Court, there is no error in the judgment, in so far as the quantum is concerned. However, still reserving its right to challenge the aforesaid observations, the impugned order ignoring the vital aspect that the non-applicant/wife is qualified enough and is just not entitled for any maintenance from the applicant/husband is required to be considered by this Court. The impugned order is therefore arbitrary and just liable to be quashed and set aside. 8. I have gone through the order dated 01.10.2025 passed by the learned Family Court, Nagpur wherein both the divorce petition as well as the application for interim maintenance came to be decided. The marriage is dissolved by the decree of divorce. Applicant/wife submits that a Family Court Appeal is filed by the applicant/wife challenging the decree of divorce wherein there is stay in operation to the decree of divorce. SKNair 9 32-revn-210-25.odt 9. I have also gone through the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jaiminiben Vyas and another Vs. Hirenbhai Vyas and another (supra). The judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court has specifically observed that the High Court has not given any reasons for not granting maintenance from the date of application and hence the aforesaid impugned order therein came to be set aside. The judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shahajan Vs. the State of Utter Pradesh (supra) has specifically observed that there has to be uniformity in passing of the orders of the maintenance to be awarded either from the date of application or from the date of order which was directed that which has to be from the date of filing of the application and not from the passing of the order. 10. Interestingly enough, the impugned order dated 01.10.2025 would show that there is a specific reasons recorded by the learned Family Court for not granting the amount of maintenance of Rs.40,000/- from the date of filing of the application. It is specifically observed by the learned Family Court that the salary of the husband was Rs.1,47,218/- in the month of May, 2022. The amount of maintenance was quantified by the learned Family Court in the interim maintenance SKNair 10 32-revn-210-25.odt on the basis of said salary certificate. The said interim maintenance of Rs.25,000/- was only granted from the date of filing of the application i.e. from 12.07.2021 The remaining amount of Rs. 40,000/- per month is quantified by the learned Family Court by calculating the increase in the salary of the husband. After increasing salary for over three years, the amount of Rs.40,000/- is calculated and as such the same is granted from the date i.e. 01.10.2025 from the date of passing of the order. 11. Ms. Dhotre, learned counsel has also placed on record on the last date the latest salary certificate and copy of which is also given to the applicant/wife. The perusal of the same would show that the increased of salary is from Rs. 1,47,218/- to now Rs.1,77,750/-. 12. Thus, taking into consideration the income, assets and liabilities of both the wife and husband as has been discussed by the learned Family Court, the amount quantified by the learned Family Court towards the maintenance at the rate of Rs.40,000/- per month from the date of passing of the order does not appear to be erroneous or suffering from the patent illegality. The learned Family Court has discussed in detailed the salary certificate of the husband. The educational qualification of the wife as well as the liabilities of both the husband and wife and thereafter come to the conclusion of granting of maintenance at the rate of Rs.40,000/- per month from the date of SKNair 11 32-revn-210-25.odt passing of the order i.e. 01.10.2025. As could be seen from the cross- examination of the wife that she is already qualified with the Bachelor of Engineering degree, the learned counsel for the husband may be right in objecting to such claim of maintenance. However, it is almost a settled law now that merely the wife being qualified, the same would not by itself sufficient enough to deny the grant of maintenance to her in the absence of any cogent proof that the wife had been serving or earning her livelihood and is able to maintain herself. The objection only on the ground of qualification of the wife was therefore considered and likely rejected by the learned trial Court, I do not see any error committed by the learned Family Court in granting the maintenance from the date of passing of the order dated 01.10.2025 particularly looking to the latest salary certificate produced on record by the husband i.e. in the month of August, 2026. There is no other ground which call for interference of this Court, under its revisional jurisdiction. Both the revision applications filed by the husband and the wife are hereby dismissed. [MEHROZ K. PATHAN, J.] SKNair Signed by: Mr. S.K. NAIR Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 05/10/2026 18:00:31