Dismissed¶7

Anirudha Adityanarayan Upadhyay v. Prabha Anirudha Upadhyay

Maintenance – Interim maintenance to minor sons

Bombay HC29 Jan 2026WP/1049/2026

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bombay High Court; Madhav J. Jamdar, J.; 6th February 2026; WRIT PETITION NO. 1049 OF 2026; Article 227 Constitution of India; Family Court No. 6 Mumbai; Petition No. A/101355/2018; Exhibit 13 maintenance wife two sons; Exhibit 15 EMI flat Titwala; interim maintenance Rs. 5,000/- per month per son; wife salary Rs. 47,000/-; husband clerk Rs. 8,000/-; diploma holder Computer Engineering; unclean hands; no interference; petition dismissed; respondent served but absent; counsel Vaibhav D. Kadam, Vedika Bhoir, Rayyan Shah.

What did the court decide?

In the facts and circumstances, the Petitioner has approached this Court with unclean hands. ¶6

Anirudha Adityanarayan Upadhyay vs Prabha Anirudha… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2026)

¶1

915-WP-1049-2026.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 1049 OF 2026

¶4

Anirudha Adityanarayan Upadhyay …Petitioner Versus Prabha Anirudha Upadhyay …Respondent

¶5

Digitally signed bySHRADDHA SHRADDHAKAMLESH KAMLESHTALEKAR TALEKAR Date: 2026.02.09 20:43:03 +0530

¶6

Mr. Vaibhav D. Kadam a/w. Ms. Vedika Bhoir and Mr. Rayyan Shah, for Petitioner. None for the Respondent.

¶7

CORAM : MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J. Date : 6^th February, 2026

¶8

PC :

¶9

Heard Mr. Kadam, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner. Inspite of service, none appears for the Respondent. The Respondent is also absent.

¶10

By the present Writ Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the challenge is to the legality and validity of Order dated dated 25^th April, 2025 passed by the Family Court No. 6, Mumbai below Exh. 13 and 15 filed in Petition No. A/101355/2018 (“ Impugned Order ”). The said Exhibit 13 Application was filed by the Respondent Wife seeking maintenance for herself and two sons. Exhibit

¶11

Page 1 of 3 6^th February, 2026

¶12

Shraddha

¶13

915-WP-1049-2026.doc

¶14

15 application was filed by the present Petitioner-Husband seeking direction to the wife to pay EMI of the flat at Titwala.

¶15

By the Impugned Order, the Learned Judge of the Family Court dismissed application bearing Exhibit 15 and partly allowed Exhibit 13 application by directing that Rs. 5,000/- per month be paid as interim maintenance to each son. Learned Trial Court has observed that although it is the contention of the Petitioner-Husband that Respondent is a teacher and her salary is Rs. 67,000/-, however, the documents produced on record shows that her salary is Rs.47,000/-.

¶16

The Petitioner has stated before the Learned Trial Court that

¶17

he is working as a Clerk and earning Rs.8,000/- per month. It is admitted position that the Petitioner is a diploma holder in Computer Engineering.

¶18

Although, it is the contention of Mr. Kadam, Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner-Husband that presently he is not even earning said amount of Rs.8,000/-, however, the Petitioner is a diploma holder in Computer Engineering. The Petitioner, who is present in the Court, states that he has to look after his old mother of 75 years. On Page 2 of 3 6^th February, 2026

¶19

Shraddha

¶20

915-WP-1049-2026.doc

¶21

perusal of the bank statement of the Petitioner, the Learned Trial Court has observed that the Petitioner is not contributing towards any of the expenses and the wife is taking responsibility of maintenance of the children, their educational expenses as well as paying EMIs.

¶22

Thus, in the facts and circumstances, the Petitioner has approached this Court with unclean hands. As the Petitioner is a diploma holder in Computer Engineering, case made out that the Petitioner-Husband is not earning anything, cannot be accepted.

¶23

Accordingly, considering the facts and circumstances, no interference in the impugned order is warranted. The Petition is

¶24

dismissed.

¶25

6^th February, 2026

¶26

Page 3 of 3

¶27

Shraddha

Anirudha Adityanarayan Upadhyay v. Prabha Anirudha Upadhyay

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anirudha Adityanarayan Upadhyay v. Prabha Anirudha Upadhyay

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

Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services Ltd. Vs Sunita Premnath Ogale and 2 Others

Rekha Dattu Mahanubhav vs the State of Maharashtra

Capital First Ltd. Vs Hemant Vinaykant Parikh and Archana Hemant Parikh

Safal Devendra Targe vs Archana Safal Targe @ Archana B. Munde

Sarita Suryakant Varadkar vs Vijay Shantaram Naik Since Decd Thr His Legal Hiers and Anr.

Abdul Salaam Mohammed Mustafa Khan vs Ravindra Kumar Shrivastava