(1) 32 wp 6767-2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 6767 OF 2026 Sayyad Gyasuddin S/o. Sayyad Chand VERSUS Nilofar D/o. S. M. Iqbal -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. Mohd. Ahfaz Qureshi, Advocate for petitioner. CORAM : NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J. DATED : 06.10.2026 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner. 2. The petitioner takes exception to order passed below Exhibit 13 in Petition No. B-16/2025, the order being passed on 02.02.2026 by the Judge, Family Court, Amravati. As can be seen from the record, the main petition filed by the present petitioner herein is for a declaration of divorce under Section 7(1) Explanation (B) of the Family Courts Act read with Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act. In the said proceedings, an application came to be filed by the present respondent-wife herein for interim maintenance during pendency of the main petition. The said application is allowed, and thereby the Family Court has directed to pay interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per month to each child in addition to the maintenance granted in (2) 32 wp 6767-2026 Domestic Violence Case No. 161/2023. The said order is impugned in the present petition. 3. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, who primarily contends that even though he is not principally opposing the payment of maintenance to the child, the maintainability of the application for interim maintenance was pressed into service. He points me out that in the reply filed to the application for interim maintenance, various other grounds were taken in addition to the maintainability of the application for interim maintenance. He points me out the specific ground as taken by him placing his reliance on a judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324, Rajnesh vs. Neha and Another, wherein it is categorically held that the “maintenance granted in one proceeding must be taken into consideration in subsequent proceedings to avoid multiplicity and overlapping of maintenance orders”. It is the primary contention that since there is an alternate remedy, the application could not have been entertained. 4. I have gone through the contentions advanced by the learned Counsel and also gone through the record of the matter. The Family Court in Paragraph No. 7 thereof has categorically held that an aid to Section 151 of the C.P.C. can always be taken if there is no such specific provision. Furthermore, Section 7 of the Family Courts Act under which the main proceedings are filed or any other provision of the said Act does not carve out any embargo or bar to the applicability of such an application for interim maintenance. (3) 32 wp 6767-2026 It goes without saying that the application for interim maintenance can always be entertained by the Court on its own merits, more so when a petition like in the present case has been foisted upon her. After going through the record, I do not find any perversity or jurisdictional error in the said order. The petition is without any merit and is hereby rejected. (NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J.) Jayashree.. Signed by: Mrs. Jayashree Pethe Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 08/10/2026 18:17:49