1 7-WP-968-26.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.968 OFF 2026 Amit Namdev Phakade Age 38 years, Occu. Nil R/o. Shardul Nivas Near Dr. Bapuji Salunkhe College Swami Vevekanand Nagar, Pandharpur Road, Miraj, Taluka Miraj, District Sangli .. Petitioner Versus Rupali Amit Phakade Age 32 years, Occu. Service R/o. C/o. Shankarrao Pisal, At present Lavanmachi, Taluka Walwa, District Sangli .. Respondent Mr. S. P. Patil, Advocate for Petitioner CORAM : SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J. DATE : 04-03-2026 PER COURT:- 1. The Petitioner, by way of the present petition, seeks to quash and set aside the order dated 17.09.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Islampur, below application Exhibit-18, in Hindu Marriage Petition No. 146 of 2024. 2. By the order under challenge, the trial court allowed the respondent/wife's application for interim maintenance and rejected the petitioner/husband’s cross-application iled under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short “the Act”). 2 7-WP-968-26.odt 3. The matrimonial history of the parties indicates that the marriage, solemnized in 2014, resulted in the birth of a daughter. The disputes surfaced when the petitioner relocated to Miraj following job loss, while the respondent remained in Pune to continue her employment. A subsequent legal notice from the the petitioner was met with allegations from the respondent, who eventually iled for divorce under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Act. During those proceedings, both parties sought interim maintenance from each other. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the trial court failed to consider the petitioner’s inancial constraints caused by pandemic-related unemployment although qualiied. It is further argued that the respondent’s income is suicient to provide maintenance to the petitioner and that the aidavits of assets and liabilities were not properly appreciated. 5. Upon perusal of the record, this Court inds that while the petitioner claims continued unemployment since the COVID-19 pandemic, his own aidavit discloses a substantial and regularly serviced loan liability. No explanation has been ofered as to the source of funds utilized for these repayments. In such circumstances, a trial court has drawn an adverse inference against a party for non-disclosure of key inancial information. 3 7-WP-968-26.odt 6. It is a settled principle that a party seeking equitable relief must approach the Court with clean hands. The petitioner's failure to provide a transparent account of his inancial management disentitles him to the relief sought. 7. Consequently, there is no illegality or jurisdictional error in the well-reasoned order of the trial court. 8. The writ petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed with cost. [SACHIN S. DESHMUKH] JUDGE rrd