Dismissed¶20

Gajanan S/O Prakash Bansode v. Usha W/O Gajanan Bansode or Usha Devidas More (Before Marriage)

Bombay HC8 Jan 2026WP/6620/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Interim maintenance under Section 24 Hindu Marriage Act; Rs. 15,000 per month for wife and two children; Ayurvedic doctor husband; doctor on call; wife residing separately in parental house; children aged 14 and 11; no perversity; amount not exorbitant; education and medical expenses; Article 227 Constitution of India; supervisory jurisdiction; Nagpur Bench of Bombay High Court; Writ Petition No. 6620/2025; single judge Prafulla S. Khubalkar; decided 08-01-2026; writ petition dismissed, no costs.

What did the court decide?

No perversity is found in the impugned order; the interim maintenance of Rs. 15,000/- per month for the wife and her two children is not exorbitant in view of the requirements for expenses for education, medical expenses and other needs of three persons. ¶19

Gajanan S/O Prakash Bansode vs Usha W/O Gajanan… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Bombay HC (2026)

¶1

1 wp 6620.25.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

¶3

Writ Petition No.6620/2025

¶4

Gajanan V Usha

¶5

¶6

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders

¶7

¶8

Mr. B.K. Suchak, Advocate for petitioner.

¶9

CORAM : PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J .

¶10

DATE : 08-01-2026.

¶11

Heard.

¶12

In this petition, by order dated 18-12-2025, the

¶13

petitioner/husband was directed to deposit the arrears of maintenance in accordance with the impugned order within a period of one week from that date to show his bonafides. However, the petitioner has failed to deposit the arrears of maintenance till today.

¶14

Petitioner’s challenge is to order dated 15-04-2025 passed by the trial Court on an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, by which the husband is directed to pay interim maintenance of Rs. 15,000/- per month for the wife and their two children.

¶15

Learned Counsel for the petitioner/husband submits that the petitioner is a doctor by profession and is practicing at home since he is only working as ‘doctor on call’. He submits that the wife has herself left the company of the husband and she has been residing separately in her parental house along with her two children. Therefore, in view of the conduct of the wife she is not entitled for seeking maintenance as there is no reasonable cause for living separately.

¶16

¶17

Perusal of the impugned order shows that the trial Court has considered the fact that the wife is residing separately along with her two children who are aged about 14 years and 11 years. By considering the

¶18

fact that the husband is a Ayurvedic doctor by profession and is a practicing doctor and by also considering the statement of bank accounts, the trial Court has ordered that the interim maintenance of Rs.15,000/per month be paid for the wife and her two children.

¶19

I find no perversity with the impugned order. The amount of Rs. 15,000/- per month by way of interim maintenance for the wife and her two children is not found to be exorbitant in view of the requirements for expenses for education, medical expenses and other needs for three persons.

¶20

In view of the above mentioned factual and legal aspects, no interference is warranted under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶21

( Prafulla S. Khubalkar, J. )

¶22

Deshmukh Signed by: Mr. S.Deshmukh Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 13/01/2026 10:04:14

Gajanan S/O Prakash Bansode v. Usha W/O Gajanan Bansode or Usha Devidas More (Before Marriage)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gajanan S/O Prakash Bansode v. Usha W/O Gajanan Bansode or Usha Devidas More (Before Marriage)

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

Nilesh Vasantrao Kale vs Divisional Jt. Registrar Co-Operative Society, Amravati Division, Amravati and Ors.

Mana Devi W/O Thakur Prasad Gupta and Others vs Krishnamurari S/O Parasnath Pandey

Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., through Branch Manager, Nagpur vs Kamla W/O Vinayakrao Gainer and Others

Shailesh S/O Sheshrao Bhoyar vs Sheshrao S/O Krushnarao Bhoyar and Others

Smt. Ahilyadevi Kundalal Jaiswal (Dead) and Others vs Sau. Rajkumar @ Dipmala Dipak Thakurwar

Pramod S/O Mangilal Chawan vs Smt. Anjanabai Manikrao Ughade