Bombay High Court
WP/8372/2026 of AVINASH S/O SHANKARRAO SASANE Vs SAU. PUNAM AVINASH SASANE on 13 October 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF
(1)
110.Wp8372.26
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 8372 OF 2026
Avinash S/o Shankarrao Sasane
VERSUS
Sau. Punam Avinash Sasane
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. Rajesh Nagpure, Advocate for the Petitioner(s).
CORAM : NANDESH S. DESHPANDE
, J.
DATE : OCTOBER 13, 2026.
P.C.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
1
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Heard Mr. Rajesh Nagpure, learned counsel for the petitioner. The petition challenges order below Exhibit 10 in Petition No. A-115/2024. The order is passed on 19.11.2025 below application filed by the respondent-wife under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking maintenance pendente lite. Even though it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he was not heard while deciding the application, the order speaks otherwise.
2. In that view of the matter, the said contention is rejected. On merits, after going through the order, I am of the considered opinion that the Family Court, while deciding the application, has balanced the equities and given sufficient reasons in paragraphs 10, 11, 12 and 13. Even though the petitioner comes up with the case that he is not earning, he is under a moral obligation to maintain his wife till the parties get divorced by following due procedure of law.
3. In that view of the matter, there is no perversity in the order, nor is there any jurisdictional error. The petition lacks merits and is liable to be rejected.
4. The petition is rejected.
(NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J.) Shubham 2026:BHC-NAG:13788