The Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court has partly allowed appeals filed by a husband challenging a Family Court order that had directed him to pay ₹20,000 per month as maintenance to his wife. The High Court found serious flaws in how the Family Court assessed the evidence, especially on the wife’s income and conduct, and sent the matter back for fresh consideration.
The judgment was delivered on January 9, 2026, by a Division Bench of Justice M.S. Jawalkar and Justice M.W. Chandwani.
Read also:- No Evidence, Yet Organised Crime Tag: MP High Court Calls It Misuse of Power, Grants Bail
Background of the Case
The dispute arose between Sahil Sanjay Rathod and his wife Swati Rathod, who were married in May 2021. Within a few months, differences emerged, and the wife left the matrimonial home in August 2021.
Subsequently, multiple cases followed:
- A petition for restitution of conjugal rights
- A maintenance petition under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act
- Another maintenance plea under Section 125 of the CrPC
- A criminal complaint alleging cruelty
In August 2024, the Family Court at Yavatmal allowed all petitions filed by the wife. It directed the husband to resume cohabitation and to pay ₹20,000 per month as maintenance.
Read also:- Bombay High Court Orders Release of Adult Trafficking Victim, Says She Cannot Be Detained Against Her Will
The husband challenged this order before the High Court, arguing that the findings were based on incomplete and incorrect appreciation of evidence.
What the Husband Argued
The husband told the court that:
- The wife had voluntarily left the matrimonial home to pursue higher studies.
- She later filed criminal and maintenance cases only after remaining away for several months.
- She concealed material facts, including running a private coaching institute.
- She failed to disclose bank accounts and income in her affidavit.
- The Family Court ignored WhatsApp messages showing that she left on her own and was not forced out.
He also argued that the maintenance amount was fixed without proper assessment of actual income and liabilities.
Wife’s Stand Before the Court
The wife appeared in person and defended the Family Court’s decision. She claimed:
- She was forced to leave due to ill-treatment.
- She always wanted to return but was not allowed back.
- She had no independent source of income.
- Her educational qualifications could not be used to deny maintenance.
She relied on Supreme Court judgments stating that education alone does not disqualify a spouse from receiving maintenance.
Read also:- Bombay High Court Halts Ambernath Panel Formation Amid Political Tug-of-War Between BJP, Congress and Sena
Court’s Observations
After examining the record in detail, the High Court made several important observations:
- The wife left the matrimonial home on her own for studies and did not make any documented attempt to return for nearly 11 months.
- There was no evidence of cruelty during this period.
- WhatsApp messages placed on record showed regret from the wife rather than harassment by the husband.
- The FIR was lodged much later and appeared to be an afterthought.
- The Family Court failed to consider evidence suggesting the wife was earning through a coaching institute.
- The wife did not fully disclose her bank accounts or income in her affidavit.
The bench observed:
“The learned Family Court failed to properly appreciate the evidence on record and granted maintenance on assumptions rather than proof.”
The court also noted that filing a false or exaggerated criminal complaint could amount to mental cruelty, relying on earlier Supreme Court rulings.
Read also:- Environmental Lapse Exposed: MP High Court Flags Thousands of Units Operating Without Consent
Final Decision
The High Court partly allowed the husband’s appeals and passed the following directions:
- The Family Court’s order dated August 30, 2024, was set aside.
- The maintenance award of ₹20,000 per month was quashed.
- The matter was remanded back to the Family Court for fresh consideration.
- Both parties were directed to file fresh affidavits of income and assets.
- Any maintenance already paid will not be recovered.
- The Family Court was asked to re-decide the issue after examining all evidence afresh.
The case was disposed of with these directions, bringing temporary closure to the dispute pending fresh adjudication.
Case Title: Sahil Sanjay Rathod vs Swati Sahil Rathod
Case No.: Family Court Appeal No. 57 & 58 of 2024
Decision Date: January 9, 2026
