Suresh Namdeo Ghuge vs Sunita Suresh Ghuge and Anr. — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Suresh Namdeo Ghuge vs Sunita Suresh Ghuge and Anr. — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the orders of the Courts below granting maintenance to the Respondent No.1-wife warrant interference by this Court, notwithstanding the divorce-deed/farkat-nama dated 09.06.1995 and the delay of about 23 years in filing the maintenance application. +1 more

Court's answer

The concurrent view of the Courts below — that the Petitioner owns agricultural properties per 7/12 extracts and that Rs.3,000/- per month is reasonable considering minimum wages an able-bodied person can earn — suffers from no perversity and is a probable view; hence there is no reason to interfere.

Ratio / Principle

The marriage between the Petitioner and Respondent No.1 has not been dissolved by any Court of competent jurisdiction; accordingly, the private divorce-deed/farkat-nama of 09.06.1995 and the delay in approaching the Court do not defeat the maintenance claim.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (M.M. Sathaye, J.) dismisses Writ Petition No. 1941 of 2026, upholding maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month plus Rs.5,000/- towards expenses granted to the wife by the JMFC, Sinnar in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 30 of 2018 (order dated 07.02.2024) and confirmed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nashik Road rejecting Criminal Revision Application No. 8 of 2025 (order dated 03.11.2025). The husband relied on a divorce-deed/farkat-nama dated 09.06.1995 under which the wife allegedly accepted Rs.40,000/- for herself and a daughter, and on a delay of about 23 years in filing the application (January 2018). The Court held that the marriage was never dissolved by any court of competent jurisdiction, noted the husband's second marriage and three children therefrom, and found no perversity in the concurrent, probable view of the Courts below that the husband owns agricultural properties (per 7/12 extracts) and that Rs.3,000/- per month is reasonable against minimum wages. Interim Application No. 1240 of 2026 was also dismissed; no order as to costs.

11-WP-1941-2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

SNEHA NITIN CHAVAN

Digitally signed by SNEHA NITIN CHAVAN Date: 2026.06.11 19:47:03 +0530

WRIT PETITION NO. 1941 OF 2026 WITH

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1240 OF 2026

IN

WRIT PETITION NO. 1941 OF 2026

Suresh Namdeo Ghuge ... Petitioner/ Applicant

Versus Sunita Suresh Ghuge And Anr. ...Respondents

Ms. Prerna Shukla a/w Jay Gala for the Petitioner/Applicant. Ms. M.R. Tidke,APP for the Respondent/State.

CORAM : M.M. SATHAYE, J. DATE : 11^th JUNE, 2026

P.C. :

Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner. Perused the impugned order.

The Petitioner is challenging order dated 03.11.2025 passed in Criminal Revision Application no. 8 of 2025 by Additional Sessions Judge, Nashik Road by which the said Revision filed by the Petitionerhusband is rejected, thereby confirming order dated 07.02.2024 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sinnar in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 30 of 2018. By this order, the Magistrate had allowed application for maintenance filed by the Respondent No.1-wife. Magistrate has granted Rs. 3,000/- per month as maintenance and has also granted Rs.5,000/- towards expenses.

Having heard, learned counsel for the Petitioner, in essence,

1

Navnath Waghmare

11-WP-1941-2026

the argument centers around a divorce-deed/farkat-nama dated 09.06.1995 under which apparently parties separated and Respondent No.1-wife accepted Rs.40,000/- as maintenance for herself and a daughter born from the marriage. Leaned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that divorce deed is executed on 09.06.1995 and the present application is filed in January, 2018, after a long period of about 23 years.

It is true that the Respondent No.1 has approached the Court after long period of time. But fact remains that the marriage between Petitioner and Respondent No.1 has not been dissolved by any Court of Competent jurisdiction. It further appears that the Petitioner-husband has performed second marriage and is having three children from the said wedlock.

The Courts below have found that the Petitioner has agricultural properties, based on 7/12 extracts, and considering minimum wages that any able bodied person can earn, the amount of Rs. 3,000/- per month has been found to be reasonable.

The order of maintenance passed by learned Magistrate is confirmed by the Learned Sessions Judge on the basis of material available on record. No perversity is found in the view taken by the Courts below, which is a probable view.

Accordingly, there is no reason to interfere, the Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. In view of the dismissal fo the petition, pending Interim Application is also dismissed.

All concerned to act on duly authenticated or digitally signed copy of this order.

(M.M. SATHAYE, J.)

2

Navnath Waghmare