IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 925 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1140 OF 2026 ARVIND SHRIPATRAO PATIL VERSUS SEEMA ARVIND PATIL ... Mr. Gaurav L. Deshpande, Advocate for the Petitioner CORAM : R. M. JOSHI, J. DATED : 6th AUGUST, 2026 PER COURT :- 1. This petition takes exception to the order dated 18.02.2026 passed by the learned Family Court, Nanded in Petition E-22/2025, rejecting the application filed by the Petitioner for invoking the provisions of Section 215 read with Section 379 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (for short, ‘BNSS’), 2023. 2. The facts which led to the filing of the petition indicate that the Respondent/wife of the Petitioner preferred proceedings under Section 144 of the BNSS for seeking maintenance, and the said proceeding bearing Petition No. E-22/2025 is pending before the Family Court. Interim maintenance was also sought therein. It is the case of the Petitioner that while filing the affidavit of disclosure of assets and liabilities, as contemplated by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajnesh V. Neha and 925 WP 1140.2026.odt 1 of 4 2026:BHC-AUG:34661 Ors., MANU/SC/0833/2020, the Respondent/wife was duty-bound to disclose all the properties and, in the instant case, she has failed to disclose the gift deed executed by her mother in her favour. Thus, it is contended that this amounts to suppression of facts and, hence, action under Section 215 read with Section 379 of the BNSS is necessitated. Since the said application is rejected by the learned Family Court, the present petition has been filed. 3. Learned Advocate for the Petitioner submits that the Respondent has not disclosed the fact of receiving immovable property by way of a gift deed executed by her mother in her favour. This, according to him, amounts to suppression of fact and, therefore, constitutes an offence against public justice. It is his submission that the format provided for filing the affidavit is sufficiently clear so as to include even the property received by way of gift. It is his submission that the whole intention of filing the affidavit of assets and liabilities is to enable the Court to pass an appropriate order of maintenance. According to him, in view of the admitted fact that the said disclosure was not made, the Family Court has committed an error in passing the impugned order rejecting the application filed by the Petitioner. 4. There cannot be any dispute with regard to the proposition sought to be canvassed by the learned Advocate for the Petitioner that the whole endeavour behind obtaining affidavits from rival parties is to ascertain their 925 WP 1140.2026.odt 2 of 4 financial status, taking into consideration the assets and liabilities. At the same time, if the said format is perused, it only deals with the self-acquired property or the property jointly held in the name of the rival parties. Apart from this, as it appears from the impugned order, the Respondent/wife has explained the circumstances in which the said disclosure was not made. The learned Judge of the Family Court, by taking into consideration the contentions of both sides, has recorded the following findings: “3. The respondent in the reply/say Exh. 13 filed to the main petition itself stated that, proceeding under P.W.D.V. Act is filed by daughter-in-law of the mother of the petitioner before Judicial Magistrate F.C. Bhokar which is pending against the petitioner and her mother; and in order to defeat right to maintenance and right to residence of the daughter-in-law of the mother of the petitioner, the mother of the petitioner has gifted the house in the name of the petitioner. Same is the contention of the petitioner in the say filed to present application that the gift deed is executed by her mother in her favour only to save it (being claimed by her sister in law (brother’s widow as shelter house or share in it). Thus, there is a substance in contention of the respondent that in order to avoid said house from the daughter-in-law of her mother, her mother has executed the gift deed but actual beneficiary still is her mother. Even otherwise the said house as actually in occupation of the mother of the petitioner and the petitioner has taken only shelter in the said house after the respondent compelled her to leave the matrimonial house. 4. Therefore, in my view when the petitioner is nominal owner of the house gifted to her by her mother on 24/07/2022, her failure to disclose said house as her property in the Affidavit of Assets and Liabilities Exh. 20 cannot be considered as false statement. Of course, the act of the petitioner in not disclosing said house in her name by way of gift by her mother, cannot be justified but said act is not sufficient to make inquiry under Section 379 of BNSS and to lodge the complain against her for 925 WP 1140.2026.odt 3 of 4 making false statement. Further, as per Section 379 of B.N.S.S. lays down that if the court is of opinion that it is expedient in the interest of justice that inquiry should be made into any offence referred in clause (b) of Sub-Section (1) of the Section 215 of BNSS which appears to be committed then the court may inquire and file the complaint.” 5. The observations made by the learned Family Court are in consonance with the material on record and thus cannot be called perverse so as to call for interference therein. In any case, the proceedings which are penal in nature could be initiated against the parties if it is found that there is deliberate non- disclosure of any information. Apart from the fact that there is a satisfactory explanation provided by the Respondent for non-inclusion of the gift in the affidavit of assets and liabilities, the format of assets and liabilities also is not clear so as to attribute any deliberate or intentional omission on the part of the Respondent to suppress material facts. Consequently, this Court finds no justification for causing interference in the order impugned. Hence, the petition stands dismissed. ( R. M. JOSHI, J.) ssp 925 WP 1140.2026.odt 4 of 4