JudgmentJudgment 11 fca57.24+.odtfca57.24+.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO. 57/2024FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO. 57/2024

WITHWITH

FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO. 58/2024FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO. 58/2024

ANDAND

CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (REVN) NO. 194/2024CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (REVN) NO. 194/2024

FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO. 57/2024FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO. 57/2024

Sahil Sanjay Rathod,

Aged about 33 years, Occ.

Business and Agriculture,

Resident of Tilakwadi, in front

of Tarak Hospital, Yavatmal,

Taluka and District Yavatmal

.....APPELLANT(S)

//// VERSUS // VERSUS //

Swati Sahil Rathod,

Aged about 31 years, Occ.

Housewife, Resident of

Shubham Colony, Plot No. 27,

Lohara Waghapur Bypass Road,

Yavatmal, Taluka and District

Yavatmal

.....RESPONDENT(S)

.. ..

.. ..

JudgmentJudgment 22 fca57.24+.odtfca57.24+.odt

WITHWITH

FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO. 58/2024FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO. 58/2024

Sahil Sanjay Rathod,

Aged about 33 years, Occ.

Business and Agriculture,

Resident of Tilakwadi, in front

of Tarak Hospital, Yavatmal,

Taluka and District Yavatmal

....APPELLANT(S)

//// VERSUS // VERSUS //

Sou. Swati Sahil Rathod,

Aged about 31 years, Occ.

Housewife, Resident of

Shubham Colony, Plot No. 27,

Lohara - Waghapur Bypass

Road, Yavatmal, Taluka and

District Yavatmal

.....RESPONDENT(S)

ANDAND

CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (REVN) NO. 194/2024CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (REVN) NO. 194/2024

Sahil Sanjay Rathod,

Aged about 33 years, Occ.

Business and Agriculture,

Resident of Tilakwadi, in front

of Tarak Hospital, Yavatmal,

Taluka and District Yavatmal.....APPLICANT(S)

.. ..

.. ..

JudgmentJudgment 33 fca57.24+.odtfca57.24+.odt

//// VERSUS // VERSUS //

Swati Sahil Rathod,

Aged about 31 years, Occ.

Housewife, Resident of

Shubham Colony, Plot No. 27,

Lohara - Waghapur Bypass

Road, Yavatmal, Taluka and

District Yavatmal

.....RESPONDENT(S)

●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●

Shri R.R. Deo, Advocate for the Appellant/Applicant(s)Shri R.R. Deo, Advocate for the Appellant/Applicant(s)

Respondent in person Respondent in person

●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●

CORAM : M.S. JAWALKAR & M.W. CHANDWANI, JJ.CORAM : M.S. JAWALKAR & M.W. CHANDWANI, JJ.

CLOSED FOR JUDGMENT ON :- CLOSED FOR JUDGMENT ON :- DECEMBER 11 DECEMBER 11 ,, 2025 2025

JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON :- JANUARY 09, 2026JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON :- JANUARY 09, 2026

JUDGMENTJUDGMENT :- (PER:- M.S. JAWALKAR, J.):- (PER:- M.S. JAWALKAR, J.)

. ADMIT. Heard finally by consent of learned Counsel

for the Appellant and the Respondent in person.

(2) By all these matters, the Appellant – Husband is

challenging the common judgment and order dated 30/08/2024

passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Yavatmal in Petition

No. A-126/2022 (for restitution of conjugal rights), Petition

No. C-4/2022 (for maintenance under Section 18 of the Hindu

.. ..

.. ..

JudgmentJudgment 44 fca57.24+.odtfca57.24+.odt

Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956) and Petition

No. E-74/2022 (for maintenance under Section 125 of the Code

of Criminal Procedure, 1973) filed by the Respondent – Wife by

which all the Petitions were allowed, the Respondent – Wife

was directed to resume cohabitation with the Appellant -

Husband and the Appellant – Husband was directed to pay

maintenance of Rs. 20,000/- per month to the wife in each

Petition for maintenance.

(3) Since Family Court Appeal No. 57/2024 is treated as

main matter, the facts and contentions stated in the said Appeal

are set out for adjudication of the issues involved in all the

matters and they are being decided by this common judgment.

(4) The facts giving rise for filing of the present matters

are as under:-

(5) The Appellant is the husband of the Respondent.

Their marriage was solemnized on 24/05/2021 as per the Hindu

Rites and Customs in Yavatmal. For sake of convenience, the

parties are referred to as, "husband" and "wife". It is the

contention of the husband that after residing peacefully at the

.. ..

.. ..

JudgmentJudgment 55 fca57.24+.odtfca57.24+.odt

matrimonial house for a very brief period, the wife started

harassing the husband and his family members. On 30/09/2022,

the wife filed a Petition for restitution of conjugal rights under

Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before the learned

Judge, Family Court, Yavatmal bearing Petition No. A-126/2022.

On 23/01/2023, the husband refuted all the allegations made in

the Petition by filing a comprehensive reply-cum-written

statement. Two weeks prior to the institution of the aforesaid

Petition, the wife had lodged an FIR bearing Crime No.

187/2022 at the local Police Station for the offence punishable

under Section 498-A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal

Code, 1860. The husband preferred Criminal Application (APL)

No. 1436/2022 for quashing of the said FIR in which, this

Hon’ble Court, by the order dated 20/10/2022, issued notices to

the Respondents and granted interim relief by directing not to

file final report against the husband.

(6) It is the contention of the husband that the wife had

attempted to harass him by instituting multiple proceedings

claiming multiple reliefs against him and his family members.

Apart from the DV proceedings, the wife had also preferred a

.. ..

.. ..

JudgmentJudgment 66 fca57.24+.odtfca57.24+.odt

Petition bearing No. C-4/2022 for grant of maintenance under

Section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956,

which was in addition to the Petition filed for grant of

maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973. Since the wife had broadly made common

allegations against the husband in all the proceedings, by the

order dated 09/02/2023, the learned Judge, Family Court

directed that the Petitions for maintenance be tagged along with

the Petition for restitution of conjugal rights.

(7) It is further contended that the wife had suppressed

that she was running a private teaching institute, which

generated substantial income, which is evident from a

matrimonial register published in the year 2020, which was

placed on record before the learned Judge, Family Court. She

had further suppressed that she was suffering from physical

disability, which is evident from the response filed under the

Right to Information Act, 2005 along with the disability

certificate. On 30/08/2024, the learned Judge, Family Court,

Amravati allowed all the Petitions filed by the wife. The said

.. ..

.. ..

JudgmentJudgment 77 fca57.24+.odtfca57.24+.odt

order dated 30/08/2024 is the subject matter of challenge in the

present matters.

(8) Learned Counsel for the Appellant - Husband

submitted that the learned Judge, Family Court has failed to

appreciate that the wife had concealed her physical condition

and source of income and granted an exorbitant sum as

maintenance to the wife on a mere surmise or guesswork. The

wife had made false allegations against the husband and his

family members in all the proceedings filed by the wife. It is

contended that the wife, by her own, left the matrimonial house

after creating a ruckus. The findings recorded by the learned

Judge, Family Court is totally erroneous, perverse and contrary

to the factual position, and hence, the common impugned

judgment and order dated 30/08/2024 passed by the learned

Judge, Family Court, Yavatmal is liable to be quashed and set

aside.

(9) Learned Counsel for the Appellant – Husband, in

support of his contentions, relied on the following citations:-

(a)Anil Yashwant Karande vs. Mangal Anil

Karande, (2016) 2 Mh.L.J. 166;

.. ..

.. ..

JudgmentJudgment 88 fca57.24+.odtfca57.24+.odt

(b)Lawrence Philimone Daniel vs. Pranali

Lawrence Daniel, 2022(2) Mh.L.J. 415; and

(c)K. Shrinivas Rao vs. D.A. Deepa, (2013) 5 SCC

226;

(10) On the contrary, the Respondent - Wife, who is

appearing in person, denied the contentions of the husband

made in the present matters. She submitted that she left her

matrimonial house for preparation of her Master of Engineering

examination, after which, she attempted to return, but her

husband and his family members refused to take her back. She

always intended to cohabit with her husband, despite the past

incidents of cruelty meted out to her. She further submitted that

she is not disabled. As the allegation of disability is baseless and

does not amount to permanent incapacity affecting marriage

obligation, the disability certificate was not accepted to be true

by the learned Family Court. Even assuming for the sake of

argument that the Respondent - wife’s eyes were impaired,

which is not a fact, it cannot be considered as a permanent

disability to claim divorce or make other allegations.

(11) It is submitted that the Respondent - Wife has fully

disclosed her assets and liabilities by way of affidavit before the

.. ..

.. ..

JudgmentJudgment 99 fca57.24+.odtfca57.24+.odt

Family Court and had not concealed anything. It is submitted

that the phone number of the wife and all social media accounts

were blocked by the husband and his family members after

16/08/2021. Moreover, the jewelries of the wife worth Rs. 1 lakh

are with Anutai Bhopidas Rathod, grandmother of the Appellant

- Husband.

(12) It is further submitted that the husband is working as

a Professor in the Vasantrao Naik Secondary and Higher

Secondary School, Lalkheda, Taluka Dharwad, District Yavatmal

and is earning Rs. 1 to 1.5 lakhs per month. However, the

husband has admitted in the cross-examination before the

learned Judge, Family Court, Yavatmal that he is earning Rs. 5

lakhs per year. Considering the income and assets and liabilities

of the husband, the learned Family Court has granted just and

proper maintenance to the wife. She supports the impugned

judgment and order of the learned Judge, Family Court and

submitted that the said judgment is fully reasoned and does not

warrant any interference, and hence, prays that the Appeals and

Revision filed by the husband be dismissed with costs.

.. ..

.. ..

JudgmentJudgment 1010 fca57.24+.odtfca57.24+.odt

(13) The Respondent - Wife, in support of her

contentions, relied on the following citations:-

(a)Manish Jain vs. Akansha Jain, (2017) 15 SCC

108;

(b)Indra Sarma vs. V.K.V. Sarma, (2013) 15 SCC

755;

(c)Rina Kumari @ Rina Devi @ Reena vs. Dinesh

Kumar Mahto, 2025 INSC 55;

(d)Mohd. Abdul Samad vs. The State of Telangana

& another, 2024 INSC 506 (Criminal Appeal No.

2842/2024);

(e)Rajnesh vs. Neha & another, (2021) 2 SCC 324;

(f)S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu vs. Jagannath, AIR

1994 SC 853; and

(g)ABC vs. XYZ, 2025 INSC 129.

(14) Heard both the parties at length, perused the

common impugned judgment and order passed by the learned

Judge, Family Court, Yavatmal and considered the citations

relied on by both the parties.

(15) It is an admitted fact that the marriage between the

husband and wife was solemnized on 24/05/2021 at Yavatmal.

Out of the said wedlock, there is no issue. The main grievance of

the wife was that she had resided with the joint family and the

.. ..

.. ..

JudgmentJudgment 1111 fca57.24+.odtfca57.24+.odt

grandmother of the husband used to harass her mentally and

used to taunt and insult her. On 16/08/2021, she left her

matrimonial house for pursuing her education. After her

examination, she had expressed her desire to resume

cohabitation with her husband, however, her husband refused to

resume cohabitation with her.

(16) As against this, the contention of the husband was

that the wife was not happy because her marriage was

solemnized against her will and she wanted to make her career.

She has 40% disability. However, this fact was suppressed by the

wife. The wife used to give threat of commission of suicide.

Though she left the matrimonial house on 16/08/2021 along

with her maternal uncle, she lodged report with the Police

Station on 12/07/2022 for no valid reason. The wife filed Petition

No. C-4/2020 and claimed maintenance of Rs. 1 lakh per month

under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act,

1956. In this Petition for grant of maintenance, based on the

other contentions, both the parties denied their income as

claimed. There is one Petition bearing No. E-74/2022 for grant

of maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. In the said

.. ..

.. ..

JudgmentJudgment 1212 fca57.24+.odtfca57.24+.odt

Petition, the wife claimed Rs. 50,000/- per month on the basis of

same facts. The husband denied the contentions of the wife.

(17) On perusal of the examination-in-chief of the wife, it

appears that she deposed as per her pleadings. Her contention

was that all her attempts to resume cohabitation with her

husband were failed, so also the orders passed under the DV Act

were not followed. In her cross-examination, she has admitted

that she has made a wrong statement that she has filed only one

application for maintenance. The allegations of cruelty and

mental harassment were against the grandmother of the

husband. She has also admitted that the grandmother of the

husband i.e. Anutai Rathod, is having good reputation and

prestige in the society. She held many political positions and

people do give respect to her. She has also admitted that said

grandmother of the husband might be around 89 years old,

when she went to her matrimonial house after marriage. From

her cross-examination, it reveals that on 16/08/2021, she along

with her parents and maternal uncle, who was a Police Inspector

at Wadgaon Police Station, returned back to her parents' house

along with her clothing and other articles. She also admitted that

.. ..

.. ..

JudgmentJudgment 1313 fca57.24+.odtfca57.24+.odt

on 15/08/2021, she gave a phone call to her parents and asked

them to come to her matrimonial house. As there was

examination of Master of Engineering, she went to her parents'

house.

(18) Though she deposed that, thereafter, she along with

her grandfather went to the matrimonial house on 03/10/2021

on her own, there is no pleading to that effect. She has also

admitted that till filing of the various Petitions, she has not given

any notice for cohabitation to her husband. It also reveals from

Paragraph No. 26 of her evidence, that if the husband would

have shown willingness to cohabit with the wife, there was no

reason to lodge a criminal complaint against the husband or his

relatives. In her cross-examination, she was put to a question

that as she was suffering from fever and tonsil, she returned to

her parents' house. In answer to this question, she has submitted

that as the husband has not taken her to the doctor, she went to

her parents' house for treatment. However, this fact is nowhere

pleaded in her Petitions, which she has admitted after verifying

the contents in the Petitions. She has also admitted in the DV

.. ..

.. ..

JudgmentJudgment 1414 fca57.24+.odtfca57.24+.odt

proceedings that this Court remanded the matter back to the

District Judge for reconsideration.

(19) She has also admitted that her first birthday after

marriage on 22/07/2021 was celebrated by her husband and

family members. Insofar as the maintenance is concerned, the

wife has admitted that she is having an account in the State Bank

of India since 2011-12, however, she has not mentioned it in her

affidavit of assets and liabilities. She has denied that she is

running any tuition classes by name "Joy Engineering Classes".

(20) As per the pleadings in the reply of the husband, it is

alleged that his wife was career-minded. She was insisting on

residing separately from the parents of the husband. After she

had left the house, she has posted messages to her husband on

WhatsApp on 22/08/2021, 23/08/2021, 01/09/2021 and

07/09/2021. The details of the said WhatsApp messages are given

in Paragraph Nos. 4, 5 and 6 of the evidence on affidavit of the

husband. After going through the said WhatsApp messages, it

appears that the wife had expressed regrets for the situation &

for her behaviour. It was her expectation that her husband

.. ..

.. ..

JudgmentJudgment 1515 fca57.24+.odtfca57.24+.odt

should come to take her back. From all these messages, one fact

is clear that she was not harassed by any of the family members,

but what is probable is that she wanted to pursue her studies

further. Therefore, she left her matrimonial house.

(21) From the perusal of the evidence, it reveals that

nobody has forced the wife to leave her matrimonial house. So

far as her contention that she has made attempts to resume

cohabitation with her husband is concerned, the same is not

established, as there was no pleading to that effect. The FIR was

lodged after 11 months wherein the allegations were made

against the family members, which are not there in any of the

WhatsApp messages. Even in the FIR also, she has not

mentioned anywhere that she attempted to resume cohabitation

before lodging of the FIR.

(22) It is also admitted by the wife that she was possessing

two SIM cards, and it was not established that both the cards

were blocked by the husband. From the admission of the wife

that she would not have lodged the complaint in the Police

Station if the husband would have consented for cohabitation,

.. ..

.. ..

JudgmentJudgment 1616 fca57.24+.odtfca57.24+.odt

clearly goes to show that the allegation made in the said

complaint is an afterthought. There was no allegation against the

husband. The learned Judge, Family Court has not properly

appreciated the evidence on record and gave weightage to the

evidence of the wife. If the WhatsApp messages are read, the

wife has clearly expressed regrets for her behavior in many

words. However, the learned Judge, Family Court only referred

the said WhatsApp messages as her love and affection towards

her husband. The WhatsApp messages are at Exhibit 139. There

are specific questions put to the wife and she has admitted that

she has two SIM cards. The learned Judge, Family Court

observed in Paragraph No. 37 of the impugned judgment and

order as under:-

“37.If the initial withdrawal from the

company of the another spouse was with consent, but

later on the spouse denied the opportunity to rejoin

or reconcile without a valid reason, it can be stated

that the withdrawal is now without any reasonable

excuse. On 16/08/2021 the petitioner had gone to her

parental home for her studies of Master of

Engineering and her examination was scheduled in

September-2021, but thereafter she was not allowed

to rejoin the company of the respondent…...”

.. ..

.. ..

JudgmentJudgment 1717 fca57.24+.odtfca57.24+.odt

(23) However, the learned Judge, Family Court failed to

appreciate that there is no pleading to the effect as to what steps

the wife has taken for resuming cohabitation. As she left the

matrimonial house on her own for examination, she ought to

have returned back after the examination was over, but for a

long period of 11 months, no attempts were made by her. On the

contrary, she has lodged an FIR after 11 months of cruelty and

harassment at the hands of the family members of the husband.

(24) Learned Counsel for the Appellant – Husband, in

support of his contention that if a false criminal complaint is

preferred by either of the spouse, it would constitute

matrimonial cruelty, relied on the judgment in Anil Yashwant

Karande (supra). This Court in the said judgment, held in

Paragraph No. 38 as under:-

“38.The Supreme Court as well as this Court in

the aforesaid judgments have consistently held that if

the false criminal complaint is preferred by either

spouse it would invariably and indubitably constitute

matrimonial cruelty, such as would entitle the other

spouse to claim a divorce. In my view, the respondent

having filed a false complaint alleging offence under

section 498-A, 323, 504 and 506 of IPC in which the

.. ..

.. ..

JudgmentJudgment 1818 fca57.24+.odtfca57.24+.odt

appellant and his family members were acquitted and

thus the appellant was entitled to seek divorce on the

ground of cruelty under section 13(1)(i-a) of the

Hindu Marriage Act.”

(25) Learned Counsel for the Appellant - Husband placed

reliance on the judgment in Lawrence Philimone Daniel (supra)

wherein this Court, in Paragraph No. 10, held as under:-

“10. The perusal of the provision would show

that before granting the decree of restitution of

conjugal rights, the Court must be satisfied of the

truth of the statements made in the petition that

either the husband or wife has, without reasonable

excuse withdrawn from the society of the other. In

other words, if the Court is satisfied that there is

reasonable excuse to withdraw either by the husband

or wife from the society of other then, it would be

very difficult for the Court to record satisfaction with

regard to the truth of the statement made in the

petition......”

(26) If at all the wife left for her studies on 16/08/2021,

and till filing of the FIR, she was residing with her parents, there

is no any question of any cruelty and harassment, as there was

.. ..

.. ..

JudgmentJudgment 1919 fca57.24+.odtfca57.24+.odt

no allegation during this period of any cruelty or harassment.

On the contrary, the WhatsApp messages of the wife show that

she asked to forgive for her behavior. Though she has stated that

she along with the grandfather on her own went to the house of

the husband, however, she has admitted that there is no

reference of this fact in any of the Petitions. Moreover, her

admission that she could not have filed a criminal complaint if

the husband would have consented for cohabitation clearly goes

to show that the FIR was lodged simply to pressurize the

husband and his family members.

(27) Learned Counsel for the Appellant – Husband also

placed reliance on the judgment in K. Shrinivas Rao (supra)

wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held that making unfounded

indecent defamatory allegations against the spouse or his or her

relatives in the pleadings, filing of complaints or issuing notices

or news items which may have adverse impact on the business

prospect or the job of the spouse and filing repeated false

complaints and cases in the court against the spouse would, in

the facts of a case, amount to causing mental cruelty to the other

spouse, which would warrant grant of divorce.

.. ..

.. ..

JudgmentJudgment 2020 fca57.24+.odtfca57.24+.odt

(28) The Respondent – Wife, in support of her contention

that the wife's education/ability to earn does not negate

entitlement to maintenance, relied on the judgment in Manish

Jain (supra), wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court, in Paragraph

No. 15, held as under:-

“15. An order for maintenance pendente lite or

for costs of the proceedings is conditional on the

circumstance that the wife or husband who makes a

claim for the same has no independent income

sufficient for her or his support or to meet the

necessary expenses of the proceeding. It is no answer

to a claim of maintenance that the wife is educated

and could support herself. Likewise, the financial

position of the wife’s parents is also immaterial. The

Court must take into consideration the status of the

parties and the capacity of the spouse to pay

maintenance and whether the applicant has any

independent income sufficient for her or his support.

Maintenance is always dependent upon factual

situation; the Court should, therefore, mould the

claim for maintenance determining the quantum

based on various factors brought before the Court.”

.. ..

.. ..

JudgmentJudgment 2121 fca57.24+.odtfca57.24+.odt

(29) In our considered opinion, in the matter before the

Hon’ble Apex Court, there was an issue of maintenance in

pendente lite. In the present matter, it has already been granted

along with the cost of litigation.

(30) The Respondent - Wife also placed reliance on the

judgment in Indra Sarma (supra) in support of her contention

that coercion or family pressure preventing cohabitation is

relevant for Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act. As already

discussed, the wife herself left her matrimonial house to pursue

her post-graduation in engineering. However, there is nothing

on record, so also in the pleading that she has made any attempt

till filing of the FIR to return back to her matrimonial house. So

far as the judgment relied on by the wife in Rina Kumari (supra)

is concerned, the same is not applicable in present set of facts. In

fact, in present matter, there was no just cause not to return to

the matrimonial house after her examination was over. Till filing

of the criminal complaint, there were no efforts made by the

wife on record, nor there are any pleadings about the said

attempts to resume cohabitation with her husband. It is also not

established that the grandmother of the husband, in any way,

.. ..

.. ..

JudgmentJudgment 2222 fca57.24+.odtfca57.24+.odt

influenced or insisted to the husband not to resume cohabitation

with the wife.

(31) Insofar as the maintenance is concerned, in our

considered opinion, the learned Judge, Family Court, Yavatmal

has not appreciated the evidence in its proper perspective. It is

the contention of the husband that the wife is running tuition

classes named as “Joy Engineering Classes” and he has duly

established that the phone number for contact which was given

in the advertisement is admittedly the phone number of the

wife. The wife has admitted that she has two sim cards having

numbers 8446651821 and 9359564611 respectively. The former

number is reflected in the advertisement of the Joy Engineering

Classes, although she has denied that she has Joy Engineering

Coaching Institute. She has also denied that her maiden name is

‘Swati Vilas Jadhav’, however, the same is reflected in the

matrimonial register published in the year 2020 as well as in the

mark-lists of her degree course and the disability certificate are

placed on record. The learned Judge, Family Court has not given

any consideration to this piece of evidence and also not

considered that the wife was having an account in the State

.. ..

.. ..

JudgmentJudgment 2323 fca57.24+.odtfca57.24+.odt

Bank of India. She has not mentioned it in her affidavit of assets

and liabilities.

(32) In our considered opinion, the grant of maintenance

to the extent of Rs. 20,000/- per month is on the basis of

insufficient evidence. In view of the above discussion, the

common judgment and order dated 30/08/2024 passed by the

learned Judge, Family Court, Yavatmal in Petition

No. A-126/2022 on Exhibit 163, Petition No. C-4/2022 on

Exhibit 28 and Petition No. E-74/2022 on Exhibit 35 are liable to

be quashed and set aside. The matters are required to be

remanded back to learned Judge, Family Court, Yavatmal for

fresh consideration to the extent of maintenance.

(33) Hence, we proceed to pass following order:-

O R D E R

(a) The Family Court Appeals and Criminal

Revision Application are partly allowed.

(b) The common judgment and order dated

30/08/2024 passed by the learned Judge, Family

.. ..

.. ..

JudgmentJudgment 2424 fca57.24+.odtfca57.24+.odt

Court, Yavatmal in Petition No. A-126/2022 on

Exhibit 163 is hereby quashed and set aside.

(c) Insofar as the common judgment and order

dated 30/08/2024 passed by the learned Judge, Family

Court, Yavatmal in Petition No. C-4/2022 on Exhibit

28 and Petition No. E-74/2022 on Exhibit 35 is

concerned, the same is also hereby quashed and set

aside, however, the matters are remitted back to the

learned Judge, Family Court, Yavatmal to decide the

same afresh by directing the parties to file fresh

affidavits of assets and liabilities, as on today.

(d) The payments already made towards the

maintenance is not recoverable from the wife,

however, the learned Judge, Family Court, Yavatmal

is directed to reconsider the claim of maintenance by

calling upon the parties to file fresh affidavits of assets

and liabilities. Both the parties are at liberty to rely on

additional evidence, if any, and their respective

citations to the extent of grant of maintenance.

.. ..

.. ..

JudgmentJudgment 2525 fca57.24+.odtfca57.24+.odt

The Family Court Appeals and Criminal Revision

Application stand disposed of in the above terms. Pending

Application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.

(M.W. CHANDWANI, J.)(M.W. CHANDWANI, J.) (M.S. JAWALKAR, J.) (M.S. JAWALKAR, J.)

.. ..

.. ..