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 High Court should interfere with the maintenance order confirmed by the courts below, given the divorce-deed/farkat-nama dated 09.06.1995 and the delay of about 23 years in filing the maintenance application.

Court's answer

Though Respondent No.1 approached the Court after a long period, the marriage between the Petitioner and Respondent No.1 has not been dissolved by any Court of Competent jurisdiction; the Petitioner-husband has performed a second marriage and has three children from that wedlock.

Ratio / Principle

The view taken by the Courts below in confirming the maintenance order on the material available on record suffers from no perversity and is a probable view.

Key takeaways

There is no reason to interfere with the orders of the courts below; the Petition is dismissed with no order as to costs, and the pending Interim Application is also dismissed.ratio¶26

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction), Coram: M.M. Sathaye, J. (11 June 2026) - Dismissed the writ petition filed by the husband (Suresh Namdeo Ghuge) challenging the order dated 03.11.2025 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Nashik Road in Criminal Revision Application No. 8 of 2025, whereby his revision was rejected and the order dated 07.02.2024 of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sinnar in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 30 of 2018 was confirmed, granting Respondent No.1-wife (Sunita Suresh Ghuge) Rs. 3,000/- per month as maintenance and Rs. 5,000/- towards expenses. Although the wife applied in January 2018, about 23 years after a divorce deed/farkat-nama dated 09.06.1995 under which she apparently accepted Rs. 40,000/-, the Court held that the marriage was never dissolved by any court of competent jurisdiction, noted the husband's second marriage with three children, and found no perversity in the courts below's view - based on his agricultural properties shown in 7/12 extracts and minimum wages an able-bodied person can earn - that Rs. 3,000/- per month was reasonable. Petition and pending Interim Application No. 1240 of 2026 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