Manish Vinod Ringasia vs Aarti Manish Ringasia Alias… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Bombay HC (2026)

Manish Vinod Ringasia vs Aarti Manish Ringasia Alias… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Bombay HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the Family Court's maintenance order under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (Rs. 30,000/- per month to the wife and Rs. 10,000/- each to the son and daughter) can stand, given the petitioner's contention that the parties reside under the same roof, that he pays the children's school fees and household expenses, and that he had been paying Rs. 10,000 to Rs. 15,000 per month to the respondent. +2 more

Ratio / Principle

Despite this Court's order dated 21.11.2025 requiring affidavits of assets and liabilities to be filed by 03.01.2026, the petitioner filed none; being out of India was no excuse, as a request for extension of time should have been made, and no such request was made.

Key takeaways

Considering the income of the petitioner, the quantum of maintenance granted by the Family Court (Rs. 30,000/- per month to the respondent/wife and Rs. 10,000/- each to the son and daughter) appears to be very reasonable.ratio¶27

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Civil Appellate Jurisdiction), Writ Petition No. 16964 of 2024, decided 09.04.2026 by N.R. Borkar J.: The petitioner/husband challenged the Family Court, Thane order dated 13.05.2024 (below Exh.7 in Petition No. A/229/2023) which allowed the respondent/wife's application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and directed payment of monthly maintenance of Rs. 30,000/- to the wife and Rs. 10,000/- each to the son and daughter. Petitioner contended the parties live under one roof, that he pays school fees and household expenses, and that he had paid Rs. 10,000 to Rs. 15,000 per month; respondent's counsel asserted petitioner earns about Rs. 5,00,000/- per month. Although this Court's order dated 21.11.2025 required both parties to file fresh affidavits of assets and liabilities by 03.01.2026, the petitioner filed none and, though claiming to have been out of India, sought no extension. Holding the petitioner's non-compliance against him and judging the maintenance quantum, in view of his income, to be very reasonable, the Judge dismissed the writ petition, leaving the impugned maintenance order undisturbed.

907-wp-16964-2024.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO. 16964 OF 2024

Manish Vinod Ringasia

…Petitioner

V/s.

Aarti Manish Ringasia Alias Aarti Bimal Sharma ...Respondent

Sr. Adv. Ms. Neeta Karnik i/b Mr. Piyush Todkar, Advocate for the Petitioner/Applicant.

Mr. Rahul Shelake a/w Adv. P. M. Khopkar, Advocate for the Respondent.

CORAM : N.R. BORKAR, J. DATE : 09.04.2026.

P.C. :

This petition takes exception to the order dated

13.05.2024 passed by the Family Court, Thane below Exh.7 in Petition No. A/229/2023.

By the order impugned, the learned Family Court has allowed the application filed by the respondent/wife under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and directed the petitioner/husband to pay monthly maintenance at the rate of Rs. 30,000/- to the respondent/wife and Rs. 10,000/- each to the son

and the daughter.

Pramod S.Lakare

1/3

907-wp-16964-2024.doc

I have heard the learned senior counsel for the

petitioner/husband and the learned counsel for the contesting respondent/wife.

The learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the parties are residing under the same roof. It is submitted that the petitioner is even paying the school fees of the son and daughter. It is further submitted that the petitioner is looking after the household expenses and till the date of passing of the impugned order was paying Rs.10,000 to Rs. 15,000 per month to the respondent/wife. It is submitted that the learned Family Court has ignored these facts. It is submitted that the impugned order, therefore, cannot be allowed to stand.

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that the petitioner is earning about Rs.5,00,000/- per month. It is submitted that the learned Family Court after considering all the aspects has passed the impugned order.

The learned counsel for the respondent has drawn my attention to the order passed by this Court dated 21.11.2025. By the said order, this Court directed the parties to file fresh affidavits Pramod S.Lakare

2/3

907-wp-16964-2024.doc

of assets and liabilities. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that, till date, the petitioner has not filed the said affidavit of assets and liabilities. It is submitted that thus the petition be dismissed.

Inspite of the order dated 21.11.2025 passed by this Court, the petitioner has not filed the affidavit of assets and liabilities. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the affidavit could not be filed as the petitioner was out of India. The affidavit was to be filed by 03.01.2026. If the petitioner was out of India, then request should have been made for extension of time to file the affidavit. However, it appears that no such request is made. Apart from it, considering the income of the petitioner the quantum of maintenance granted by the Family

Court appears to be very reasonable.

The petition is therefore dismissed.

[N.R.BORKAR, J.]

Pramod S.Lakare

3/3