Dismissed¶21

Asruba Govind Satpute and Others v. Indrabai Yadav Satpute

Bombay HC19 Dec 2025SA/603/1999

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Maintenance enhancement - Second Appeal - concurrent findings of Trial Court and Additional District Judge - appellants' sufficient means of income evidenced by 55 acres of agricultural land and Court Commissioner's report (Exh. 21) showing Survey Nos. 127 and 140 at Taraf Giram Beed, well on Survey No. 127 - monthly maintenance of Rs. 400/- from date of institution of 1990 suit - no perversity or illegality found - appeal dismissed, no order as to costs - Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench - Judge Abhay J. Mantri - decided 19 December 2025.

What did the court decide?

None; the Second Appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs, and the direction of the Courts below to pay maintenance of Rs. 400/- per month stands. ¶21

Asruba Govind Satpute and Others Vs Indrabai Yadav Satpute — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the Second Appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs, and the direction of the Courts below to pay maintenance of Rs. 400/- per month stands.

¶21

Issue for consideration

Whether the judgments and orders of the learned Trial Court and the Appellate Court granting/enhancing maintenance of Rs. 400/- per month to the respondent are illegal, improper or perverse and liable to be set aside. +1 more

¶8

Court's answer

No perversity or illegality was pointed out in the impugned judgments and orders of the Courts below; being well-reasoned, they warranted no interference.

¶20

Ratio / Principle

The appellants possess 55 acres of agricultural land, which by itself denotes sufficient means of income to pay maintenance to the respondent; the Court Commissioner's report (Exhibit 21) records the family lands, including Survey No. 127 (on which a well exists) and Survey No. 140, situated at Taraf Giram Beed.

¶17

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Second Appeal No. 603 of 1999 (High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad; Abhay J. Mantri, J.; decided 19 December 2025) - dismissed. The respondent had filed a suit in 1990 for enhancement of maintenance; the Trial Court (paragraph 12) held that the appellants/defendants had earning and financial capacity, partly allowed the suit and directed payment of enhanced maintenance of Rs. 400/- per month from the date of institution of the suit. The learned Additional District Judge, considering the evidence and the Court Commissioner's report (Exh. 21), held in paragraphs 17-18 that the appellants had sufficient means of income and that the Trial Court's order was just and proper, and dismissed the First Appeal. The Commissioner's report showed lands Survey No. 127 (35 Acres 25 Gunthas) and Survey No. 140 (19 Acres 23 Gunthas) at Taraf Giram Beed, with a well on Survey No. 127. Holding that the appellants' 55 acres of agricultural land denoted sufficient means of income, and that no perversity or illegality had been pointed out in the well-reasoned judgments below, the High Court dismissed the Second Appeal with no order as to costs and directed return of records and proceedings.

¶1

2025:BHC-AUG:36529

¶2

1 925.odt

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

	SECOND APPEAL NO. 603 OF 1999
1.	Ashruba S/o. Govind Satpute, age 50 years, occu. Agri., R/o. Dhangarpura, Beed, Tq. And Dist. Beed.
2.	Eknath S/o. Govind Satpute, age 45 years, occu. and R/o. As above.
3.	Bapu S/o. Govind Satpute, age 43 years, occu. and R/o. As above.
4.	Smt. Nabhabai D/o. Govind Satpute age 37 years, occu. and R/o. As above.
5.	Smt. Chhababai D/o. Govind Satpute, age 35 years, occu. and R/o. As above. ...Petitioners
	Versus
	Indrabai W/o. Yadav Satpute, age 65 years, occu. Agri., R/o. Dhangarpura Beed, at present residing at village Pachegaon, Tq. Georai, Dist. Beed. ...Respondent
Adv	... ocate for Appellants : Mr. V.D. Salunke …
	CORAM : ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.
	DATE : 19^THDECEMBER, 2025

¶5

2 925.odt

¶6

ORAL JUDGMENT :

¶7

Heard learned Advocate Mr. Salunke, for the appellants. Perused the impugned orders and record.

¶8

Learned Advocate Mr. Salunke, for the appellants vehemently argued that the judgments and orders passed by the learned Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court are illegal and improper. Learned Courts below have not considered the financial condition of the appellants and erred in granting maintenance of Rs. 400/- per month to the respondent. Therefore, he submitted that the said judgments and orders are liable to be set aside.

¶9

Having gone through the impugned judgments and orders as well as the record, at the outset, it appears that in the year 1990, the respondent filed suit for enhancement of maintenance. Learned Trial Court dealt with the evidence in detail in paragraph no. 12 and held that the appellants/defendants have the earning and financial capacity to pay maintenance and thereby partly allowed the suit and directed the appellants to pay the enhanced amount of maintenance of Rs. 400/- per month to the respondent from the date of institution of the suit. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the appellants have preferred a First Appeal.

¶10

The learned Additional District Judge, after considering the evidence, the Commissioner's report (Exh. 21), documents and record,

¶11

3 925.odt

¶12

in paragraph 17, has held that the appellants/defendants have sufficient means of income to pay maintenance. In paragraph 18, the Court also held that the order passed by the learned Trial Court is just and proper and requires no interference; hence, it dismissed the appeal.

¶13

I have also gone through the Court Commissioner report (Exhibit 21), which clearly indicates that the original respondents have

¶14

the following properties :

¶15

Sr.	Survey Nos.	Area	Situated at
Nos.
1.	127	35 Acres, 25 Gunthas	Taraf Giram Beed
2.	140	19 Acres, 23 Gunthas	Taraf Giram Beed

¶16

It also emerges that the well exists in land Survey No.127.

¶17

It appears that the appellants have 55 Acres of agricultural land. This itself denotes that the appellants have sufficient means of income.

¶18

The learned Trial Court, as well as the Appellate Court, after considering the evidence on record, observed in their judgments that the appellant has sufficient means of income to pay the maintenance to the respondent; consequently, the Trial Court awarded maintenance of Rs. 400/-, and the Appellate Court confirmed the same. The learned Advocate failed to point out any perversity or illegality in the impugned judgments and orders. On the other hand, it seems that

¶19

4 925.odt

¶20

the judgments and orders passed by the learned Courts below are wellreasoned, and no interference is warranted in them.

¶21

As a result, I do not find merit in the Second Appeal. Hence, the Second Appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. Records and proceedings should be sent back to the concerned Courts.

¶22

( ABHAY J. MANTRI, J. )

¶23

SPC

Asruba Govind Satpute and Others v. Indrabai Yadav Satpute

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Asruba Govind Satpute and Others v. Indrabai Yadav Satpute

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vanita Satish Sanap vs Satish Madhukar Sanap

Manohar Walmik Patil Vs Priyanka Manohar Patil and Another

Shaikh Iqbal Shaikh Gani Patel Vs the State of Maharashtra

Vishwanath Madhav Mokal Vs Bharti Vishwanath Mokal and Others

Jyoti Vijay Solanke and Ors. vs the State of Maharashtra through the Deputy Director of Health Service (Transport) Pune

Shivam Rajeshlal Gurkhude and Another vs the State of Maharashtra