1 10-wp-310-26-order.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 310 OF 2026 Mrs. Nahid Afreen W/o Mohd. Intiyaz Versus Mohammad Intiyaz S/o Mohd. Rasul Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Order Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's order Shri Ansari Shahir Shabbir, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Khobragade, Advocate for the respondent. CORAM : MEHROZ K. PATHAN, J. DATED : 15th SEPTEMBER, 2026. The petitioner challenges the order dated 24.02.2026 passed by the learned Additional and District Judge, Nagpur whereby order of grant of maintenance dated 20.03.2025 was reduced to Rs.9,000/- per month granted in favour of the respondent no.2 - Amaira from the date of application to Rs.5,000/-. 2. Shri Ansari, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that impugned order came to be passed by the learned District Judge without hearing the petitioner/wife. Order granting interim maintenance passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ramtek dated 20.03.2025 was passed after due consideration to the assets and liabilities and the SKNair 2 10-wp-310-26-order.odt income of the applicant. Wife was denied any maintenance and only daughter was granted Rs.9000/- taking into consideration the expenses which are likely to occur. The petitioner/wife as well as the respondent/husband has both filed an appeal challenging the order of interim maintenance dated 20.03.2025 by filing separate appeals, along with condonation of delay. Appeal filed by the petitioner wife along with delay of application is still pending for consideration before the appellate Court. The appeal filed by the respondent/husband was considered on the application of delay application and delay was condoned and the appeal was taken up for hearing on the stay application and the impugned order dated 24.02.2026 was passed on the stay application filed by the respondent/husband. The perusal of the order itself suggests that petitioner/wife was not even heard while passing such an order which reduces the interim maintenance of Rs.9,000/- to Rs.5,000/-. There are no reasons also recorded as to why such an order was passed behind the back of the petitioner/wife. The impugned order is therefore illegal and passed in violation of the principle of natural justice and therefore requires to be set aside. SKNair 3 10-wp-310-26-order.odt 3. Shri Khobragade, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent/husband submits that petitioner/wife was heard on the condonation of delay application. The delay in filing the appeal against the grant of interim maintenance filed by the respondent/husband was already condoned and the appeal was taken up for hearing. The petitioner/wife had chosen to remain present during the hearing of delay condonation, however, she did not remain present while the appeal was taken up for hearing. Instead the petitioner/wife had pursued the execution proceedings and was successful in obtaining warrant of attachment of the salary of the respondent/husband in the execution. Taking into consideration the urgency of the matter, the learned Additional Sessions had decided to take up the application for stay Exhibit 4 filed by the respondent/husband and passed an appropriate order by reducing the interim maintenance of Rs.9000/- to Rs.5000/-. The order is well reasoned order. The stay is passed after taking into consideration the urgency that the order dated 12.02.2026 was passed by the executing Court thereby directing the attachment of the salary and hence order cannot be said to be passed without application of the mind. The fact that the appeal is still pending for hearing. The appeal can be SKNair 4 10-wp-310-26-order.odt heard on merits by granting opportunity of hearing to the petitioner/wife and hence this is not a fit case to exercise the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and impugned order is liable to be maintained. 4. I have gone through the impugned order dated 24.02.2026 and the order granting interim maintenance dated 20.03.2025, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ramtek. Perusal of the entire order dated 20.03.2025 shows that the same is passed after detailed consideration of the income, assets and liabilities of the respondent/husband who is employee of the Bank of India. The petitioner/wife is denied any interim maintenance pending for consideration of final maintenance application and it is only child which has been granted maintenance of Rs.9,000/- per month. The said fact was taking into consideration after due application of mind and also considering the fact that the main application is still pending for the decisions of the learned trial Court. Order was challenged by both petitioner/wife and respondent/husband by filling different appeals. The appeal of the respondent/husband was taken up after condonation of delay of only on the application Exhibit 4 filed by the SKNair 5 10-wp-310-26-order.odt respondent/husband, as there was a warrant issued vide order dated 12.02.2026 passed by the learned trial Court for recovery of Rs.2,43,000/-. The petitioner/wife submits that the maintenance amount at the rate of Rs.5,000/- is being paid by the respondent/husband. However, the amount of Rs.9,000/- has been reduced without hearing the petitioner/wife herein. 5. Thus, taking into consideration the aforesaid submissions and also order dated 24.02.2026, it appears that petitioner/wife was not even issued a notice upon the application Exhibit 4 for grant of stay. The said application Exhibit 4 is allowed only on the consideration that an order of issuance of executing warrant was issued on 12.02.2026 by the learned trial Court for recovery of Rs.2,43,000/-. The application appears to have been allowed mechanically, without recording any reasons as to why it was necessary to decide the same in the absence of the Wife. The learned Counsel specifically alleges that the application for taking the case on board was filed on 24.02.2026, seeking grant of stay on the execution of the interim maintenance order dated 20.03.2025, and that without even issuing notice to the Respondent, the same was allowed finally, thereby virtually rendering the entire appeal infructuous. SKNair 6 10-wp-310-26-order.odt The fact remains that the petitioner/wife was not even heard while passing such an order which infact not only grants stay to the impugned order of interim maintenance, but reduces the same from Rs.9,000/- to Rs.5,000/- without hearing the petitioner/wife. Thus, it appears that principles of natural justice is violated by the learned District Judge, Nagpur while passing the impugned order. Hence, I am inclined to pass following order. ORDER i. Writ Petition is allowed. ii. The impugned order dated 24.02.2026 passed by the learned District Judge, Nagpur reducing maintenance amount of Rs.9000/- to Rs.5000/- which is paid to the child, is hereby quashed and set aside. iii. Both the parties are directed to appear before the learned District Judge, Nagpur on 28.09.2026. iv. The learned District Judge, Nagpur is hereby directed to rehear the application Exhibit 4 afresh after granting opportunity of hearing to the petitioner/wife and decide the application expeditiously and not beyond a period of two months from the date of appearance. SKNair 7 10-wp-310-26-order.odt v. The respondent is at liberty to take appropriate steps for execution of the order dated 20.03.2025, granting interim maintenance of Rs.9,000/- in favour of petitioner no.2/Child. [MEHROZ K. PATHAN, J.] SKNair Signed by: Mr. S.K. NAIR Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 17/09/2026 17:39:57