Latest news with #AjinkyaPSalunke
Indian Express
05-08-2025
- Indian Express
‘Marriage can't be dissolved over trivial allegations': Pune family court rejects woman's claim of husband's impotency
A family court in Pune recently rejected the claim of a woman that her husband was impotent, citing a lack of evidence, and directed her to go back to his house within two months. The couple got married in 2020, and work as software engineers in Pune. 'Marriage is a sacrament and cannot be dissolved over trivial or unproven allegations. As the wife's accusations remain unsubstantiated, the husband's petition is granted,' Judge Ganesh Ghule said in his order, which was made available on the public domain on August 1. The court said that while the wife's accusation could constitute a valid reason for refusal to cohabit, it must be proven. 'Mere unsubstantiated claims cannot be accepted. The wife failed to demonstrate that her husband's conduct endangered her life or made living with him intolerable,' the judge noted in his order in June. According to the lawyers representing the husband, the woman, who is from Pune, had left her husband after accusing him of being incapable of physical relations. 'After the marriage, the couple went on a honeymoon. After returning, the woman opposed staying with in-laws. So the couple started living separately. After that, she got a job. After six months of living with her husband, she started living separately as a paying guest,' the advocate said. The woman's husband then filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking restitution of conjugal rights, arguing that his wife had abandoned him without any valid reason and should be ordered to return and resume marital cohabitation. In her written response to her husband's petition, the woman claimed that her husband had a suspicious temperament and was incapable of physical relations, stating that they had never consummated the marriage and that he suffered premature ejaculation. She had alleged that when she had asked her husband to consult a doctor, he insulted her, and his family drove her out of the house. She also noted having filed a separate petition for annulment in another court. However, the husband rejected all accusations in the court and asserted that he was fully capable and that they enjoyed a healthy sexual relationship during and after their honeymoon. The court concluded that she had abandoned her husband without sufficient cause. It further observed that because she had filed an annulment petition elsewhere, it was inappropriate to delve deeper into the husband's capacity in this proceeding. Advocate Ajinkya P Salunke, appearing for the husband, said that the family court's ruling has made it clear that the decision upholds respect for the institution of marriage. 'According to Hindu law, marriage is a sacred rite. It should not be broken over trivial reasons or unproven allegations. Both spouses are expected to make efforts to maintain their relationship. In short, this judgment transcends a private dispute and highlights the importance of trust, responsibility, and harmony in marriage,' the lawyer said. Advocate Mayur P. Salunke, also representing the husband, stated that the court reiterated that its primary aim is to reunite spouses who have separated and to guide them through counselling. 'Judicial processes should not be invoked for every minor issue or unsubstantiated ones. When one party levels serious allegations—such as questioning the husband's physical capacity—the burden of proof lies entirely on the accuser. Unsubstantiated accusations cannot withstand legal scrutiny,' Mayur P. Salunke said. Court finds inconsistencies in woman's statements The family court examined both parties' arguments and evidence. Although the wife raised serious questions about her husband's physical capacity, she produced no medical proof or expert testimony. The court found inconsistencies in her statements, claiming that the marriage was never consummated and that he suffered premature ejaculation, Advocate Ajinkya Saluke said. In family matters, decisions rest on the preponderance of probabilities rather than proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The wife's inability to substantiate her allegations meant she had no valid reason to refuse cohabitation, Advocate Ajinkya Salunke said.
Indian Express
29-04-2025
- Business
- Indian Express
Pune: Family Court dismisses woman's interim maintenance claim
In a significant ruling on maintenance claims, the Family Court, Pune, recently dismissed an interim maintenance application filed by a woman against her husband. The Family Court found that suppression of facts and 'forum shopping' had influenced the petition, making it a legally untenable claim. The court imposed costs on the wife for suppression of facts. The verdict comes in light of increasing concerns over multiple maintenance claims being filed in different courts without disclosing previous orders, a practice that has been strongly discouraged by the Supreme Court of India, said lawyers representing the husband. The woman had sought Rs 25,000 per month as interim maintenance. She contended that she had no independent source of income and was financially reliant on her husband. The woman argued that her husband earned Rs 2,00,000 per month working at a reputed bank and that he owned two luxury cars and had fixed deposits in SBI and Bank of Baroda. She also argued that his parents' company, a private engineering firm, generated an annual revenue exceeding RS 25 lakh and due to her alleged financial distress, she sought a substantial monthly maintenance amount to meet her basic expenses. During the arguments before the court, the husband raised serious objections through his advocates Mayur P Salunke, Ajinkya P Salunke and Amol P Khobragade. The man, in his counter affidavit, refuted her claim, arguing that his wife was already receiving Rs 5,000 per month in a domestic violence proceeding filed in Osmanabad's Judicial Magistrate Court and that she was gainfully employed and earned around Rs 40,000 per month independently. He also argued that allegations regarding his bank deposits, car ownership, and fixed assets were grossly inaccurate and that he had significant financial liabilities, including loan repayments and responsibilities towards his elderly parents. Judge S. N. Rukme, in his order dismissed the wife's application, citing suppression of material facts, as the court found that the respondent woman did not disclose that she was already receiving interim maintenance under her Domestic Violence Act case. This failure to provide full disclosure was deemed misleading. The court also cited forum shopping and lack of fresh grounds. The court referred to the Supreme Court ruling in Rajneesh v. Neha [(2021) 2 SCC 324], which prohibits forum shopping—the practice of seeking multiple maintenance awards without revealing prior orders. Since the wife failed to provide new evidence justifying increased maintenance or proving a significant change in financial circumstances, her plea was rejected outright. The husband's advocates said the court emphasised that while Section 26 of the Domestic Violence Act allows maintenance orders in concurrent proceedings, such relief should only be granted when justified by clear evidence. As the woman was already receiving maintenance, her attempt to seek an additional award was found to be legally untenable. Advocate Ajinkya P Salunke said, 'This ruling will act as a deterrent against frivolous maintenance petitions, ensuring that financial relief is granted based on merit rather than overstated financial claims. Also, the judicial consistency in maintenance cases will promote efficiency and fairness, preventing unnecessary litigation burdens.' Advocate Mayur P Salunke said, 'With this judgment, the Family Court Pune has reaffirmed that maintenance must be awarded based on transparency and necessity. The dismissal of the woman's plea with cost highlights the importance of honesty in legal proceedings, ensuring that financial support aligns with genuine economic hardships rather than speculative demands.' The ruling, the advocates claimed, sets an important precedent in maintenance disputes, reinforcing that courts will not entertain duplicate maintenance claims unless substantial new financial hardships are demonstrated; Full disclosure of previous maintenance orders is mandatory, ensuring fair adjudication in financial support cases; and the judiciary will adopt a strict approach towards 'forum shopping'.
