IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Digitally signed
by
HUSENBASHA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
HUSENBASHA RAHAMAN
RAHAMAN NADAF
NADAF Date:
2026.07.27
13:03:23
WRIT PETITION NO. 2549 OF 2025
+0530
Prashant Lunawat )
Age 41 years, Occupation- Business, )
Currently residing at House No.4/43, )
Lamta Road, Baihar- District, )
Balaghat, Madhya Pradesh-481111 ) Versus
1) Khushboo Jain )
Age 42 years, Occupation: Service )
Residing at flat no. 202, Raigad CHSL, )
Sher E Punjab, Andheri East, Mumbai )
-400093 ) 2) Hriday Prashant Lunawat
Age 11 years, Occupation: Student )
Residing at flat no. 202, Raigad CHSL, )
Sher E Punjab, Andheri East, Mumbai )
-400093 ) 3) State of Maharashtra ) ***
Ms. Pushpa Ganediwala a/w. Ms. Anshu Agrawal for Petitione Mr. Akshay Shetty i/b Mr. Akhilesh Chaubey for Respondent
Nos.1 & 2.
Ms. Manisha R. Tidke, APP for Respondent No.3-State.
***
Prashant Lunawat vs Khushboo Jain And Anr on 24 July, 2026
CORAM : M.M. SATHAYE, J DATE : 24t ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. This is a dispute between the Petitioner-husband and
Respondent No.1-wife. Petitioner-husband has filed this petition challenging an interim order
4-WP-2549-2025 @.doc dated 30.01.2025 passed by the Judge of Family Court No.2, Mumbai
below Exh.5-A in Petition E-256 of 2021, directing the Petitioner- husband to pay
interim-maintenance of Rs. 50,000/- per month to Respondent No. 1-wife from 30.10.2021.
Respondent No. 2 is their son, who is about 12-13 years old, as on today.
2. Admittedly, the main application under Section 125 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (‘CrPC’, for
short) is pending and is already a 5 year old litigation. Divorce and custody litigation filed by the
Petitioner-husband is pending, which is apparently filed after about an year or so from start of above
maintenance proceedings.
3. According to the learned counsel for Petitioner-husband, Respondent No.1-wife is an educated
lady having an MBA degree. It is submitted that the Petitioner-husband is a Chartered Accountant
(CA) by profession who was employed with good salary prior to Covid-19 and was staying in
Mumbai and had taken housing loans for purchase of two flats, one at Andheri other at Panvel. It is
submitted that during Covid-19, he lost his job and his income decreased and he was required to
move to his native place, Baihar, Madhya Pradesh, where he is practicing as CA. It is submitted that
presently the Petitioner-husband is required to pay bank’s equated monthly installments (EMI) of
both Andheri and Panvel flats apart from spending on himself, his parents at native place and pay
maintenance and due to decline in earning, he is facing financial difficulty. It is submitted that
Petitioner is required to borrow money from family members. It is submitted that Respondent
No.1-wife is not ready to come and stay with husband at Baihar. On instructions, 4-WP-2549-2025
@.doc it is submitted the Petitioner-husband is ready to pay Rs.25,000/- per month, if Respondent
No.1-wife shifts to Panvel Flat so that the Andheri flat can be sold and arrears can be cleared. It is
further submitted that though EMI for Andheri is about Rs. 60,000/- and EMI for Panvel flat is
about Rs. 40,000/-, however, the difference between market value of two flats is far more
considerable, which has material bearing on the aspect of sale proceeds. It is further submitted that
the sale of Andheri flat is necessary for paying other EMI amount as well as for clearing arrears of
maintenance which are mounting by day.
4. On the other hand learned counsel for Respondent No.1-wife submitted that the Petitioner has
not cleared the arrears as per the impugned order, which are about Rs.27 lakh as on today, after
deducting the amount paid/deposited. He submitted that the Magistrate has considered the reduced
income and average of 3 years is considered. So far as the income of the Petitioner-husband is
concerned, he submitted that the income tax return have shown decrease in the income after the
litigation stared, which indicates that the decrease shown is not genuine. He also raised
maintainability issue of the petition contending that revision can be filed against the impugned
order. He submitted that the Respondent No. 1 wife is not ready to shift to Panvel flat.
Prashant Lunawat vs Khushboo Jain And Anr on 24 July, 2026
5. It is not disputed that what is under challenge is an interim- maintenance order. Parties are yet to
face final verdict. From impugned order itself it is clear that Respondent No.1-wife is earning at least
Rs.15,000/- per month as salary on the date of impugned order. Evidence of her recent employment
and salary was not before 4-WP-2549-2025 @.doc the Family Court. According to the learned
counsel for the Petitioner- husband, as on today, Respondent No.1-wife is earning much more.
6. I have considered rival submissions and perused the record.
7. Considering that the Petitioner has invoked supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India and further considering the fact that under earlier orders, the parties agreed
for final disposal of the matter at admission stage, the objection in maintainability is overruled.
8. This is a case where according to the husband, the wife is not residing / refusing to reside with
him without any sufficient reason and therefore she is not entitled in view of Section 125(4) of CrPC.
According to the wife, the husband left the matrimonial house which according to her is Andheri
flat. In view of the fact that main application is pending, I am not commenting on this aspect to
avoid prejudice to either side.
9. Perusal of the impugned order shows that the learned Judge of the Family Court has held that
there is no explanation for the decrease in the income during financial year 2020-21. Impugned
order records that litigation started in 2021. It is almost a year after the Covid Pandemic started. So
far as the effect of Covid Pandemic which started in March 2020, it cannot be disputed that it
effected professions and businesses all across the country. Therefore the Petitioner-husband can not
be taken as exception. Therefore, it can not be said that there is no explanation for reduction in
income. The case of the Petitioner that he is required to pay EMIs of both the flats 4-WP-2549-2025
@.doc and he is also facing the liability of maintenance arrears will have material bearing on the
issue at hand. The finding of the learned Judge of the Family Court in the impugned order that the
present income of the Petitioner-husband can be safely considered at Rs.1,00,000/- to
Rs.1,50,000/- lakh per month, does not appear to be based on any objective calculation or figures.
10. It appears from the submission of the learned counsel for Respondent No.1-wife that the wife is
not contributing anything in the EMIs to be paid for keeping both the flats.
11. In a dispute between husband and wife, if wife expects a luxury of staying at a premium location
like Andheri, Mumbai without paying EMI from her own pocket and the very availability of such
premium location flat/residence is because the husband is paying EMI, then it cannot be expected
from the husband, who is supposed to pay EMI or paying EMI, will not plead it as a reason for
reduction in maintenance amount. Equality can not be claimed selectively and certainly not when
both parties are earning. If lifestyle is to be maintained, both parties must contribute.
12. Apparently, Respondent No.1-wife is not ready to leave the location of Andheri and move even to
Panvel, let alone to native place of the Petitioner-husband. The reason behind such stand is not for
this Court to comment upon, not at least at this interim stage. Be that as it may.
Prashant Lunawat vs Khushboo Jain And Anr on 24 July, 2026
13. Petitioner-husband is ready if the wife wishes to occupy Panvel flat. Because of the stand of the
Respondent No.1-wife of not vacating 4-WP-2549-2025 @.doc Andheri flat and shifting to Panvel,
the Petitioner-husband is fully justified in contending that he is not in a position to bear the
payment of both EMIs for Andheri flat as well as Panvel flat and therefore seeking reduction in the
maintenance amount.
14. The petitioner has shown clear willingness to pay Rs.25,000/- per month as interim
maintenance during pendency of the main application under Section 125 of CrPC.
15. If the Petitioner-husband who is facing maintenance litigation wants to dispose of any of his
properties (for both of which, only he is paying EMI) to raise money for meeting monthly expenses
including the liability of paying maintenance and its arrears, in my view, no fault can be found with
such a stand or request made in that behalf. At the cost of repetition, it is noted that Respondent No.
1 – wife is not contributing anything to EMIs of either Andheri flat or Panvel flat.
16. From the impugned order, it is seen that the amount of Rs.50,000/- per month directed to be
paid by the Petitioner is also for the purpose of taking care of the educational expenses of the son. It
is unfortunate to note that when the husband and wife both are earning and want their children to
take best education and both are expected to contribute to education expenses, the decision about
location of the school and fees must be taken with consent of both stake-holder parties. It is seen,
more often than not, that such decisions are taken without consulting a stakeholder party who is
supposed to contribute for educational expenses, which in the present case is the Petitioner4-WP-2549-2025 @.doc husband. If child’s education and its expenditure is an issue, decisions
about choice of school, its location and location-dependent fees can not be taken unilaterally
without consent of the party who is supposed to pay.
17. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances and for reasons indicated above, the impugned order
requires interference.
18. Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of by passing following order :
(A) The impugned order dated 30.01.2025 is set aside. (B) The Petitioner-husband is
directed to pay Rs.25,000/-
per month to Respondent Nos.1 and 2 from 30.10.2021 till disposal of the main application under
Section 125 of CrPC. Needless to mention that amount paid to Respondent No. 1 shall be subject to
final adjustment as may be ordered by the Family Court.
(C) Considering that the arrears are not substantially cleared, the Petitioner is directed to pay
arrears as per above modified amount, directly to Respondent No.1-wife within a period of 12 weeks
from today, failing which the impugned order will revive.
Prashant Lunawat vs Khushboo Jain And Anr on 24 July, 2026
(D) Hearing of main application (E-256/2021) is expedited and the concerned learned Judge of the
Family Court is directed to hear and decide it, in accordance with law, within 9 months from
presentation of this order.
4-WP-2549-2025 @.doc (E) Both sides are directed to co-operate with the Family Court for
expeditious disposal.
19. All concerned to act on duly authenticated or digitally signed copy of this order.