Mr. Vijay Vinayak Sasvadkar vs. Mrs. Vrushali Vijay Sasvadkar

CRA/590/2025HC BombayGSTCNR HCBM01058085202516 September 20263 pages

AI SummaryDismissed

Facts

The Applicant, Mr. Vijay Vinayak Sasvadkar, challenged an order by the Family Court, Pune, which granted maintenance of Rs. 20,000/- per month to the Respondent, Mrs. Vrushali Vijay Sasvadkar. The Applicant contended that the Respondent was employed at ICCS Company with a salary of Rs. 20,000/- per month, had not disclosed her income through an affidavit or bank statements, and that the maintenance application was filed belatedly. He also argued that the Respondent's educational qualifications and the Applicant's other liabilities were not considered. The Respondent countered that the Applicant had not produced evidence of her employment or income, and while she was qualified, she had no independent income at the time of filing. She asserted that the Applicant runs a business, Vijayraj Fire Sales, with an annual turnover exceeding Rs. 1 Crore, and that the Family Court's order was well-reasoned.

Held

The High Court dismissed the Civil Revision Application. The Court found no infirmity in the Family Court's order granting maintenance of Rs. 20,000/- per month. While the Applicant claimed the Respondent was employed and earning, no documentary evidence was produced to substantiate this. Conversely, documents on record, including GST documents (Exhibit-54), confirmed the Applicant's business, Vijayraj Fire Sales, with an annual turnover exceeding Rs. 1 Crore. The Court reasoned that the Family Court had rightly appreciated the financial positions of both parties based on the material placed before it. The mere educational qualification of the Respondent was deemed insufficient to deny maintenance. The Court also noted that the case laws cited by the Applicant were factually different from the present case. Therefore, no error or infirmity warranting interference was found in the impugned order.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Family Court erred in granting maintenance of Rs. 20,000/- per month to the Respondent, considering the Applicant's contentions regarding the Respondent's alleged employment and income, and the Applicant's own financial liabilities. Contentions: Petitioner (Applicant): Argued that the Respondent is employed at ICCS Company earning Rs. 20,000/- per month, and failed to provide an affidavit or documents to prove her income. The maintenance application was filed approximately two years after the divorce petition, suggesting it was an afterthought. The Respondent's educational qualifications and the Applicant's other liabilities were not adequately considered by the Family Court. Relied on unspecified case laws. Respondent: Contended that the Applicant failed to produce any documents to prove her employment at ICCS Company or her alleged income. While educated and capable of earning, she had no independent income when the maintenance application was filed. Highlighted that the Applicant's business, Vijayraj Fire Sales, has an annual turnover exceeding Rs. 1 Crore. Argued the Family Court's order was well-reasoned.

Sections Cited

GST documents

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

3-CRA-590-2025 (C).doc N.S.Kamble IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 590 OF 2025 Mr. Vijay Vinayak Sasvadkar ...Applicant Versus Mrs. Vrushali Vijay Sasvadkar ...Respondent ____________________________________________________________ Ms.Pooja B. Makhija, for the Applicant. Mr.Ghansham Jadhav, for the Respondent. ____________________________________________________________ CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J. DATE : 16th SEPTEMBER, 2026 P.C. : . The challenge in this Application is to the order passed by learned Family Court, Pune, granting maintenance of Rs.20,000/- per month to the Respondent. 2. It is contention of learned counsel for the Applicant that Respondent is working in ICCS Company at Mahape Ghansoli, Navi Mumbai with salary of Rs.20,000/- per month. The Application for maintenance was filed nearby two years after filing of divorce petition, which was after thought. The learned counsel further submitted that the Respondent has not filed an affidavit disclosing her income. No Bank statement or other document were placed on record to show the actual income of the Respondent. The learned counsel further submitted that the Page 1 of 3 NILAM SANTOSH KAMBLE Digitally signed by NILAM SANTOSH KAMBLE Date: 2026.09.22 12:58:02 +0530 3-CRA-590-2025 (C).doc N.S.Kamble learned Judge has not considered the educational qualification of the Respondent. The Applicant has other liabilities but this fact is not considered by the learned Judge while determining the amount of maintenance and requested to allow the Application. 3. It is contention of learned counsel for Respondent that no documents have been produced on record to show that the Respondent is working in ICCS company and that she is earning a salary of Rs.20,000/- per month. Though the respondent is educationally qualified and capable of earning but at the time of the filing maintenance application, she had no independent source of income. The Applicant is carrying on business in the name of Vijayraj Fire Sales with annual turn over of Rs.1 Crore. The learned judge has passed well reasoned order and requested to dismiss the Application. 4. I have heard both learned counsel. Perused impugned order and documents produced on record. 5. It is Applicant’s case that Respondent works at ICCS company at Mahape Ghansoli, Navi Mumbai. However, no documents produced on record to show her income. Whereas, the documents produced on record shows that the Applicant carrying on a business by name Vijayraj Fire sales and GST documents with list at Exhibit-54 shows that the Applicant runs Page 2 of 3 3-CRA-590-2025 (C).doc N.S.Kamble the said business and the annual turn over of the said business is more than Rs.1 crores. On the basis of the income of the Applicant the learned Judge has granted Rs.20,000/- per month maintenance to the Respondent and I do not find infirmity in it. 6. I have gone through the case laws cited by the learned counsel for the Applicant facts of the present case and cited case are different. 7. Considering the material placed on record, the learned Judge has rightly appreciated the financial position of the parties and granted maintenance of Rs. 20,000/- per month to the Respondent. Mere educational qualification of the Respondent is not sufficient to deny maintenance. I find no error or infirmity in the impugned order warranting interference. Hence, the Application deserves to be dismissed and I pass following order.

(i)

The Civil Revision Application is dismissed. (ii)

All pending Applications are disposed of. (SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)

Reproduced from the public record of the Bombay High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.