Sumit Satish Agrawal v. Namita Pradip Gupta

19-WP-500-2025.doc Arjun

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.500 OF 2025 Sumit Satish Agrawal

...Petitioner

Versus

Namita Pradip Gupta

...Respondent

Digitally signed by ARJUN VITTHAL KUDHEKAR Date:

2025.10.07 22:02:54 +0530 ARJUN VITTHAL KUDHEKAR _______________________________________________________________ Mr. Paras Yadav i/b Sumant Patale, for the Petitioner. Mr. Satyendra Muley a/w Akriti Chaturvedi, Amruta Kulkarni, Anirudha Medhekar & Arya Doshi, for the Respondent.

_______________________________________________________________ CORAM: MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.

DATED: 06 OCTOBER 2025 P.C.:

1.

Heard Mr. Yadav, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. Muley, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent. 2.

The challenge in this Writ Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is to the Order dated 29th August 2024 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court No.4, Pune below Exhibit-5 in P. A. No.224 of 2018. The said Application bearing Exhibit-5 has been filed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking maintenance of Rs.2,00,000/- per month for the Respondent and the minor daughter.

3.

By the impugned Order, the learned Judge, Family Court has directed payment of interim maintenance of Rs.50,000/- per month i.e.

19-WP-500-2025.doc Rs.35,000/- per month to the minor daughter and Rs.15,000/- per month to the Respondent-wife. The learned Judge has observed that the the Petitioner-husband has not filed his Income Tax Returns, he has neither filed his Form-16 nor the salary slip of the company where he is working. He has furnished the statement which shows that he is working as a Program Manager. He is having a gross monthly salary of Rs.2,58,631/-. The said statement was filed in the year 2020. In view of the same, the learned Judge has observed that now the salary must have increased. In any case, the learned Judge has rightly held that adverse inference is required to be drawn as the Petitioner has failed to produce the relevant documents.

4.

Thus, in the facts and circumstances, no interference is warranted in the impugned Order under the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

5.

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed with cost of Rs.25,000/-. The cost is to be paid to the Respondent within a period of 4 weeks from today.

[MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.]