Bombay High Court Imposes Rs. 1 Lakh Costs On Husband For 'Systematic Attempt' To Not Pay Maintenance To Wife & Child
The Bombay High Court dismissed the Petition filed by the husband challenging the Order which dismissed his Application to recall the maintenance Order.
The Bombay High Court has imposed Rs. 1 Lakh in costs on a husband for his “systematic attempt” to not pay maintenance to the wife and child.
The Court dismissed the Petition filed by the husband challenging the legality and validity of the Order which dismissed his Application to recall the maintenance Order. The Court noted that it was unbelievable that the husband, who was working as a Software Developer making Rs. 65 Lakh per annum, now argued that he only made Rs. 20k per month.
A Single Bench of Justice Madhav J Jamdar held, “Thus, it is clear that the systematic attempt is made by the Petitioner to ensure that even if any order is passed by the Court granting maintenance, it will be impossible for the wife to execute the same. It is significant to note that the Petitioner - husband is not even ready to pay maintenance to the daughter who is presently 8 years old.”
Advocate Naina Sharma appeared for the Petitioner, while Advocate Amol Jagtap represented the Respondent.
Brief Facts
The husband submitted that after he suffered an accident, he was on medical leave for 2 months. After he resumed service, he stated that he had resigned from the job due to not being able to work properly because of the accident. Therefore, he argued that due to this change in circumstances, the impugned Order should be set aside or modified.
Court’s Observations
The High Court stated that the husband had not approached the Court with clean hands.
“Thus, it is clear that the Petitioner has come with totally false case. It is unbelievable that the Petitioner who is a Software Engineer and working as “Software Developer” and was getting salary of Rs.65,00,000/- per annum i.e. salary of Rs.5,50,000/- per month is now getting salary of Rs.20,000/- per month. Even the biodata uploaded on the matrimonial website also shows that the Petitioner has represented, even after the said alleged accident and resignation of the job allegedy due to the said accident, that he is earning Rs.35 Lakhs to Rs.50 Lakhs per annum,” the Court held.
The Court referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath (1994), wherein it was held that “it is the duty of every litigant to approach the Court with clean hands. It has been further observed that if a litigant approaches the Court with unclean hands, then his case has to be thrown out immediately out of the Court. It has been observed that the Courts of law are meant for imparting justice between the parties.”
Consequently, the Court ordered, “Accordingly, Writ Petition is dismissed with cost of Rs.1,00,000/- to be paid by the Petitioner to the Respondent - wife within a period of 4 weeks from today.”
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the Writ Petition.
Cause Title: X v. Y (Neutral Citation: 2025:BHC-AS:14717)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocates Naina Sharma and Gauri Bandre
Respondent: Advocates Amol Jagtap, Deepika Tendulkar and Vinayak Pandit
