Dismissed¶29

Praful Jayantilal Shah S/O Jayantilal Shah v. Falguni Praful Shah D/O Suresh Shah

Bombay HC5 Feb 2025WP/11944/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: interim maintenance; Family Court No.7 Bandra; Article 227 Constitution of India; writ petition dismissed; affidavit of disclosure; non-disclosure of true income; clean hands; arrears Rs.11,00,000/-; maintenance Rs.20,000/- p.m. Parties: Praful Jayantilal Shah (Petitioner, counsel Satish Mande) versus Falguni Praful Shah (Respondent, counsel Sonal Modi). Impugned order: 13 May 2024, IA No.42 of 2021 in Petition No.A-2288 of 2021. Outcome: Writ Petition dismissed, no order as to costs.

What did the court decide?

No interference is warranted in the impugned interim maintenance order dated 13 May 2024 passed by Family Court No.7, Bandra, Mumbai; the challenge under Article 227 fails and the Writ Petition is dismissed. ¶28

Praful Jayantilal Shah S/O Jayantilal Shah vs… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶29

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 13 May 2024 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court No.7, Bandra, Mumbai in Interim Application No.42 of 2021 in Petition No.A-2288 of 2021, directing payment of Rs.20,000/- per month interim maintenance to the Respondent, warrants interference by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶11

Court's answer

¶28

Ratio / Principle

On the contents of the Petitioner's affidavit of assets and disclosure — monthly income stated as Rs.12,500/- against stated monthly expenses of Rs.58,600/- — it was found that the Petitioner has not disclosed his true income.

¶26

Key takeaways

Having regard to the undisclosed true income evident from the affidavit of disclosure, the Petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands.ratio¶27

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (coram: Madhav J. Jamdar, J.; decision dated 8 August 2025) — Writ Petition No.11944 of 2024 dismissed with no order as to costs. The petition challenged, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the order dated 13 May 2024 of the learned Judge, Family Court No.7, Bandra, Mumbai in Interim Application No.42 of 2021 in Petition No.A-2288 of 2021, which had directed the Petitioner (husband) to pay Rs.20,000/- per month to the Respondent (wife) towards interim maintenance. The Court noted arrears of Rs.11,00,000/- with only Rs.25,000/- paid since the interim application was filed on 20 November 2020. From the Petitioner's affidavit of assets and disclosure stating monthly income of Rs.12,500/- against monthly expenses of Rs.58,600/-, it was found he had not disclosed his true income; consequently the Petitioner was held not to have approached the Court with clean hands, and no interference in the impugned order was deemed warranted.

¶1

916-REVN-284-2024.DOC

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.11944 OF 2024

¶5

Praful Jayantilal Shah s/o. Jayantilal Shah …Petitioner Versus Falguni Praful Shah D/o. Suresh Shah …Respondent

¶6

Mr. Satish Mande, for the Petitioner. Ms. Sonal Modi, for the Respondent.

¶7

CORAM: MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J. DATED : 8^th AUGUST 2025

¶8

PC:-

¶9

Heard Mr. Mande, learned Counsel appearing for the

¶10

Petitioner and Ms. Modi, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent.

¶11

The challenge in this Writ Petition is to the order dated 13^th May 2024 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court No.7, Bandra, Mumbai in Interim Application No.42 of 2021 in Petition No.A-2288 of 2021. By the impugned order, learned Judge of the Family Court has directed payment of Rs.20,000/- per month to

¶12

the Respondent towards interim maintenance.

¶13

Digitally signed by SONALI SONALI MILIND MILIND PATIL PATIL Date: 2025.08.11 10:04:13 +0530

¶14

Page 1

¶15

Sonali

¶16

916-REVN-284-2024.DOC

¶17

At the outset, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent points out that, the arrears are to the tune of Rs.11,00,000/- and only amount of Rs.25,000/- has been paid. Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent-wife states that the Interim Application has been filed on 20^th November 2020 and till date, except the said payment of Rs.25,000/-, nothing has been paid to the Respondent-wife.

¶18

Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that

¶19

the Petitioner’s financial condition is not well, he is required to maintain his mother aged 82 years and that the Petitioner is not staying in his own house but he is staying in a rented premises .

¶20

Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent states that

¶21

the Respondent is suffering from various ailments and she has undergone multiple surgeries and now she has been detected with breast cancer.

¶22

Admittedly, the Petitioner is in the business of supply of electronic material. The Petitioner in his affidavit of disclosure has stated that his monthly income is Rs.12,500/-, however, total

¶23

Page 2

¶24

Sonali

¶25

916-REVN-284-2024.DOC

¶26

monthly expenses are stated to be Rs.58,600/-. In view of the said contents of the affidavit of assets and disclosure of the Petitioner, the learned Trial Court has observed that he has not disclosed his true income.

¶27

Thus, it is very clear that the Petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands.

¶28

Thus, no interference in the impugned order dated 13^th May 2024 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court No.7, Bandra, Mumbai is warranted under the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶29

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed, however, with no

¶30

order as to costs.

¶31

[MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.]

¶32

Page 3

¶33

Sonali

Praful Jayantilal Shah S/O Jayantilal Shah v. Falguni Praful Shah D/O Suresh Shah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Praful Jayantilal Shah S/O Jayantilal Shah v. Falguni Praful Shah D/O Suresh Shah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Sangram Bajirao Pawar and Anr. vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Lily Ambookan and Ors. vs Stanny Jerom Corriea

Laxman Tukaram Kumbhar vs Eknath Tukaram Kumbhar and Ors.

Nitn Balasaheb Pokharkar vs State of Maharashtra

Neoniche Integrated Solutions Pvt. Ltd. vs State of Maharashtra through Government Pleader

Amal Dilip Desai vs Nilesh Dilip Desai and Anr.