1 18 revn 168.26 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION (REVN) NO. 168/2026 (Mr. Sachin S/o Krishnarao Naik Vs. Mrs. Sonali w/o Sachin Naik ) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. R. R. Shaikh, Advocate for applicant. CORAM: M. M. NERLIKAR, J . DATED : 07/07/2026. Heard. 2. The applicant-husband is challenging the order dated 20/04/2026 passed by the Family Court No. 5, wherein the wife was granted Rs.10,000 per month towards interim maintenance from the date of the application till final disposal of main petition. It appears that wife has filed the application at Exh. 11 for grant of interim maintenance of Rs. 30,000/-. The learned counsel for the applicant has raised three grounds that without jurisdiction the Court below has passed the impugned order, the wife is living in adultery and the amount granted is exorbitant. 3. So far as the first ground is concerned, there is no any reason to say that the Family Court at Nagpur exceeded its jurisdiction as in the application filed by the 2 18 revn 168.26 wife, the address shown is Indira Nagar Jattarodi-2 Tarodi Basti, Nagpur. Under such circumstances, when the wife is living within the jurisdiction of Nagpur, I failed to understand how the Family Court at Nagpur lacks the jurisdiction to entertain the matter. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that based on forged documents like rent agreement and the receipts of some typing institute. the respondent-wife has shown Nagpur’s address so as to bring the matter within the territorial jurisdiction of Nagpur which amounts to forum shopping So far as this contention is concerned, the evidence is yet to be started and it is a matter of trial as to whether the wife resides within the jurisdiction of Nagpur. So far as allegation regarding adultery is concerned, it needs to be considered that while granting the maintenance to the wife, the Family Court observed that both the parties have leveled several allegations and counter allegations against each other which need to be decided on merits after recording of the evidence of both the parties and admittedly, it will take some time. Under such circumstances, merely making allegations is not sufficient unless it is substantiated by the evidence. It cannot be 3 18 revn 168.26 considered as a gospel truth. It is further to be noted that in the say filed by husband, it is mentioned that prior to marriage, the wife is having relations with several persons, this cannot be said to be adultery. 4. So far as the admitted facts are concerned, it is not in dispute that the respondent is the legally wedded wife of the petitioner. It is further to be noted that the applicant is working in the MSEB as a Senior Technician and he is getting salary of Rs. 60,000/- which could be gathered from the affidavit of assets and liabilities. Though the affidavit of assets and liabilities show that the applicant has taken several loans from different Finance Companies, however that will not have an effect on the maintenance amount granted as it is a settled position of law that only statutory deductions can be reduced from the gross salary so as to arrive at a maintenance amount. Under such circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the Trial Court has considered each and every aspect of the matter and granted Rs.10,000/- per month towards interim maintenance from the date of the application. 4 18 revn 168.26 5. In view of the above, I am not inclined to entertain the present revision application against the order of interim maintenance, hence it is rejected. ( M. M. NERLIKAR , J.) Gohane