Sachin Haribhau Bidkar v. Ashwini Sachin Bidkar

Bombay HC16 Dec 2025WP/1455/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Interim maintenance; Article 227 of the Constitution of India; writ petition disposed; Family Court Jalgaon; Petition A-50 of 2021; Exhibit 27; order dated 19.11.2022; Rs. 50,000/- per month interim maintenance upheld; husband's monthly salary Rs. 1,18,000/-; EMI Rs. 82,000/-; wife to maintain daughter pursuing education; contention of absence of findings/reasons not accepted; direction to Family Court to decide main proceeding within three months; respondent's evidence partly recorded; Aurangabad Bench; Siddheshwar S. Thombre, J.; Sachin Haribhau Bidkar v. Ashwini Sachin Bidkar.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition disposed of; impugned interim maintenance order dated 19.11.2022 (Rs. 50,000/- per month) left undisturbed; Family Court Jalgaon directed to decide the main proceeding (Petition A-50 of 2021) within three months. ¶¶22

Sachin Haribhau Bidkar Vs Ashwini Sachin Bidkar — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶22

Issue for consideration

Whether the High Court, in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, should interfere with the Family Court Jalgaon's direction to pay Rs. 50,000/- per month as interim maintenance, given the petitioner's EMI burden of Rs. 82,000/- against a monthly salary of Rs. 1,18,000/-. +1 more

¶¶13

Court's answer

Even after deducting the EMI, the petitioner, who admittedly receives Rs. 1,18,000/- as monthly salary, can pay Rs. 50,000/- to the wife, as she has to maintain her daughter also.

¶¶18

Ratio / Principle

No interference is warranted with the order dated 19.11.2022 passed below Exhibit 27 by Family Court Jalgaon in Petition A-50 of 2021; the challenge under Article 227 of the Constitution of India fails.

¶¶19

Key takeaways

Since the petitioner is directed to pay interim maintenance and the respondent's evidence is partly recorded, the Family Court is directed to decide the main proceeding within a period of three months.ratio¶¶21

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Bench at Aurangabad), per Siddheshwar S. Thombre, J., disposed of a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 19.11.2022 passed below Exhibit 27 by the Family Court, Jalgaon in Petition A-50 of 2021, whereby the petitioner-husband was directed to pay Rs. 50,000/- to the respondent-wife from the date of filing of the application till disposal of the Divorce Petition. The Court noted there was no dispute about the relationship; the petitioner's monthly salary of Rs. 1,18,000/- was admitted, and held that even after deducting the EMI of Rs. 82,000/- he could pay Rs. 50,000/-, particularly as the wife had to maintain the daughter pursuing education. Finding no reason to interfere, the Court declined to disturb the interim maintenance direction and, noting that the respondent's evidence stood partly recorded, directed the Family Court to decide the main proceeding within three months. Writ Petition disposed of.

¶1

¶2

996wp1455.23

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

996 WRIT PETITION NO. 1455 OF 2023

¶5

SACHIN HARIBHAU BIDKAR VERSUS

¶6

ASHWINI SACHIN BIDKAR

¶7

Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. G.V. Wani h/f Mr. Pande Dipesh D. Advocate for Respondent : Mr. C. B. Chaudhari

¶8

CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. DATE : 16.12.2025

¶9

PER COURT :

¶10

Heard the learned Counsel for the respective parties.

¶11

By way of this petition, the petitioner assails the order dated

¶12

19.11.2022 passed below Exhibit 27 by Family Court Jalgaon, in Petition A-50 of 2021, whereby the Family Court Jalgaon directed the petitioner to pay Rs. 50,000/- to respondent from the date of filing of the application till disposal of the Divorce Petition.

¶13

Learned Counsel Mr. Wani, for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not in a position to pay such huge amount as he has to pay Rs. 82,000/- towards EMI and from the remaining amount it is very difficult for him to pay Rs. 50,000/- p.m. as maintenance. He further submits that while passing the interim order the Family Court has not recorded any finding and without any reason allowed the application by simply directing the petitioner to pay such huge amount of Rs. 50,000/p.m. as interim maintenance.

¶14

The learned Counsel for the respondent Mr.Chaudhari

¶15

¶16

996wp1455.23

¶17

submits that considering the standard of living of wife and the fact that she has to maintain her daughter who is pursuing education, the amount directed to be paid is appropriate.

¶18

Having heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and after going through the record it reveals that there is no dispute about the relationship between the petitioner and the respondent. Admittedly it was brought to the notice of the Family Court that the petitioner is receiving Rs. 1,18,000/- as monthly salary. I am of the opinion that even after deducting the EMI, the petitioner can pay the amount of Rs. 50,000/- to the wife as she has to maintain her daughter also.

¶19

Therefore, I do not find any reason to interfere with the order dated 19.11.2022 passed below Exhibit 27 by Family Court Jalgaon, in Petition A-50 of 2021 under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶20

The evidence of the respondent is already commenced and the same is recorded partly and the matter is kept for recording of further evidence.

¶21

In view thereof, considering the issue involved that the petitioner is directed to pay interim maintenance amount, I deem it appropriate to direct the family Court to decide the main proceeding within a period of three months from today.

¶22

In view thereof, the Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶23

(SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.)

¶24

mahajansb/

Sachin Haribhau Bidkar v. Ashwini Sachin Bidkar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sachin Haribhau Bidkar v. Ashwini Sachin Bidkar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Raman Bhagwandas Patel and Another Vs Sindhubai Murlidhar Kalaskar and Others

Shantabai Rambaba Bharti Vs Gangadhar Atmaram Jahdav Shinde Patil and Another

Kusum Laxman Kusalkar through Gpa Holder Gangaram Laxman Kusalkar Vs the Sub Divisional Officer Ahmednagar and Others

The Divisional Controller and Others Vs Devidas Maruti Chavan

The Divisional Controller Maharashtra State Road Corporation and Another Vs Devidas Maruti Chavan

Lahanu Mahadu Kharde Vs the Authorized Officer Vijaya Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha and Others