Dismissed¶25

Leena Anand Nikam v. Anand Ramesh Nikam and Anr.

Bombay HC21 Jan 2025WP/3766/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Wife's Article 227 writ petition against concurrent dismissal of maintenance claim; Exhibit-5 application in PWDVA No.591 of 2021 (8th Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nashik, Order dated 9th January 2023) upheld by Additional Sessions Judge-6, Nashik in Criminal Appeal (PWDV) No.24 of 2023 (Order dated 15th June 2023); Petitioner's claim of Rs.10,000/- per month salary as Principal, Space International School, Nashik disbelieved by both Courts; earlier mutual-consent divorce Petition F No.172 of 2021, consent withdrawn by Petitioner; Writ Petition dismissed, no order as to costs; Coram: Madhav J. Jamdar, J.; decided 08 August 2025.

What did the court decide?

None; the Writ Petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. ¶25

Leena Anand Nikam vs Anand Ramesh Nikam and Anr. — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2025)

¶1

14-WP-3766-2024.doc

¶2

Arjun

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.3766 OF 2024

¶5

Digitally signed by ARJUN ARJUN VITTHAL VITTHAL KUDHEKAR KUDHEKAR Date: 2025.08.18 17:58:12 +0530

¶6

Leena Anand Nikam …Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

Anand Ramesh Nikam & Anr. …Respondents

¶9

Mr. Sugandh Deshmukh a/w Aniket Kanawade, Vaibhav Thorave, Irvin D’souza, Bhushan Deshmukh, Aryan Deshmukh & Karishma Shinde, for the Petitioner.

¶10

Ms. Neelam W. Bakshi, for Respondent No.1.

¶11

Mr. S. S. Ghag, APP, for the Respondent-State.

¶12

CORAM: MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J. DATED: 08 AUGUST 2025

¶13

P.C.:

¶14

Heard Mr. Sugandh Deshmukh, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Ms. Neelam Bakshi, learned Counsel for Respondent No.1 and learned APP for the Respondent-State.

¶15

By the present Writ Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the challenge is to the legality and validity of the Order dated 15th June 2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-6, Nashik in Criminal Appeal (PWDV) No.24 of 2023 and also the Order dated 9th January 2023 passed by the learned 8th Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nashik below Exhibit-5 in PWDVA No.591 of 2021. The said Exhibit-5 application has been filed seeking maintenance. The learned Trial Court has dismissed the application, and the said Order has been confirmed by the learned Appellate Court.

¶16

¶17

14-WP-3766-2024.doc

¶18

The factual position on record shows that the Petitioner was previously in a relationship with one Sudhir, and a son is also born out of the said relationship. However, the said relationship did not continue. The marriage between the Petitioner and Respondent No.1 took place on 1st February 2020. It is an admitted position that the first wife of Respondent No.1 passed away and thereafter the second marriage was performed. Immediately after the marriage, disputes arose between the Petitioner and Respondent No.1-Husband and the Respondent No.2 - mother-in-law. It is the case of the Petitioner that since 15th March 2020 she started living separately. Thus, both Petitioner and the Respondent No.1 stayed together only for 45 days.

¶19

Both the Petitioner and Respondent filed Petition F No.172 of 2021 seeking divorce by mutual consent, and almost all the terms and conditions which Respondent No.1 was required to perform were complied with, however, thereafter, the Petitioner withdrew her consent. It is the case of the Respondent No.1 that the Petitioner had fixed the marriage with another person, but the said person refused to marry her and therefore the Petitioner withdrew her consent.

¶20

Apart from the above aspects, the factual position on record shows that the Petitioner was earlier working as the Principal at Space International School, Nashik and was receiving a salary of Rs.55,000/per month. It is the submission of Mr. Sugandh Deshmukh, learned

¶21

¶22

14-WP-3766-2024.doc

¶23

Counsel for the Petitioner that the Petitioner was only paid Rs.10,000/per month as salary as Principal in Space International School. In any case, the Petitioner has not even produced the salary slip. It is the case of the Petitioner that she resigned from the said service. Both the Courts have disbelieved the said contention by giving cogent reasons.

¶24

Thus, in the facts and circumstances, no case is made out for interference in the impugned Order.

¶25

Accordingly, Writ Petition is dismissed, however, with no order as

¶26

to costs.

¶27

[MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.]

¶28

Leena Anand Nikam v. Anand Ramesh Nikam and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Leena Anand Nikam v. Anand Ramesh Nikam and Anr.

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Samaksh Ravindra Chhajed and Anr. vs State of Maharashtra

Varoonraj Shailendra Jogdeo vs State of Maharashtra

Bhavani Shankar Chsl (Proposed) vs Slum Rehabilitation Authority

Rakesh Pravin Yadav Adn Ors. vs Radha Rakesh Yadav and Ors.

Supriya Sunil Zambre vs Sunil Uttam Zambre

Manisha Amit Tawade vs Amit Ambaram Tawde