Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 5160 (BOM)

KAVITA AGARWAL v. SANJEEV KUMAR AGARWAL

WP/10008/2026 · 2026-08-21

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

6-WP-7875-2026 (C).doc Tikam IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 7875 OF 2026 Sanjeev Kumar Agarwal ...Petitioner/s Versus Kavita Agarwal ...Respondent/s With WRIT PETITION NO. 10008 OF 2026 Kavita Agarwal ...Petitioner/s Versus Sanjeev Kumar Agarwal ...Respondent/s _________________________________________________________________ Mr. Hitesh Vyas a/w. Rasik Raut, Advocates for Petitioner in WP 7875 of 2026 and Respondent in WP 10008 of 2026 Mr. Yash CP Vyas a/w. Ms. Sejal Patel a/w. Ishita Shah, Advocates for Petitioner in WP 10008 of 2026 _________________________________________________________________ CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J. DATE : 21st AUGUST, 2026. P.C. : 1. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and Respondent of respective writ petitions. 2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner (in WP 7875 of 2026) submits that while passing order, Learned Judge has observed that Respondent-wife is capable to get interest from sale proceeds of land, amount already received from husband, her own business, around Rs.2,50,000/- and without giving any reason only mentioned that the Petitioner has around 8 cars, wife has no car. Hence, Rs.1,00,000/- granted towards interim maintenance, which is without any reason and VAISHALI ANIL TIKAM Digitally signed by VAISHALI ANIL TIKAM Date: 2026.08.29 10:18:04 +0530 6-WP-7875-2026 (C).doc Tikam requested to remand the matter. 3. Learned counsel for the Respondent-wife submits that the Learned Judge has passed well reasoned order and no interference is required any and requested to dismiss the petition. 4. I have heard both learned counsel. Perused the impugned order. While passing the order, Learned Judge has observed that the Petitioner has not produced income tax returns for the year 2024-25. While granting maintenance of Rs.1,00,000/-, the Learned Judge has not given any specific reason and mere only on assumption impugned order has been passed, hence I find it fit case to remand the matter and I pass following order: ORDER (i) Petitions are partly allowed. (ii) The impugned order dated 18/04/206 passed by the Learned Family Court, Pune is quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Learned Family Court for fresh hearing. (iii) The Learned Judge shall decide the interim maintenance application of Respondent on its own merit, as early as possible. (iv) Contentions of both the parties are kept open. (v) Both Petitions are disposed of. (SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)