29-04-2025
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'.
