MAYURIBEN W/O SANDIPKUMAR PANCHAL D/O DINESHCHANDRA PANCHAL vs. SANDIPKUMAR BALMUKESH PANCHAL

C/FA/3812/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/02/2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3812 of 2025

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SANGEETA K. VISHEN and HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE NISHA M. THAKORE ========================================================== Approved for Reporting Yes No ========================================================== MAYURIBEN W/O SANDIPKUMAR PANCHAL D/O DINESHCHANDRA PANCHAL Versus SANDIPKUMAR BALMUKESH PANCHAL ========================================================== Appearance: MR. NISARG N JAIN(8807) for the Appellant(s) No. 1 MR AA ZABUAWALA WITH MR AM PATHAN WITH MS TASNIM A ZABUAWALA(10756) for the Defendant(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SANGEETA K. VISHEN and HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE NISHA M. THAKORE

Date : 17/02/2026 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SANGEETA K. VISHEN) Captioned appeal is filed against the order dated 26.09.2025 passed by the Family Court, Jhalod below Exh. 57 in Family Suit no. 02 of 2024, that is filed under section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act of 1955”) wherein, the appellant-wife, has prayed for monthly maintenance of Rs.30,000/- for herself and Rs.20,000/- for the daughter. The appellant-wife, has also prayed for transportation allowances of Rs.5000/- for every visit. It is this application, which is disposed of by the impugned order dated 26.09.2025 mainly on two grounds; firstly, that in view of the provision of section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 Page 1 of 30

C/FA/3812/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/02/2026 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act of 1872”), the burden of proving the income is upon the appellant and she has not placed on record any cogent and reliable evidence; and secondly, that the appellant, has already preferred an application being Criminal Misc. Application no.15 of 2025 under section 144(2) of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as the “BNSS, 2023”) for maintenance and is pending. Hence, being aggrieved by the impugned order, as aforesaid, the captioned appeal. 2. With the consent of the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, the captioned appeal is taken up for final disposal. Perused and considered the documents on record including the paper-book. 3. Mr Nisarg Jain, learned advocate for the appellant submitted that in the application seeking maintenance, the appellant has made a categorical statement that the respondent – husband, is engaged in the business of gold and silver and is earning Rs.20 lac per annum. Besides, the respondent and his family members possess huge parcels of land; farmhouse and out of which, is earning Rs.10 lac annually. It is case of the appellant, that the respondent is earning Rs.25 to Rs.30 lac per annum and monthly, Rs.2,10,000/-. The appellant has also pointed out that she has a daughter, aged 4 years and all throughout, since her birth, the respondent has not taken any care. The appellant being unemployed, it is difficult for her to maintain herself and the daughter. Given the standard of the husband, an amount of Rs.50,000/- is claimed towards the maintenance coupled with the grievance that the appellant, has to incur expenses towards transportation while travelling to Gujarat from Madhya Pradesh. Page 2 of 30

C/FA/3812/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/02/2026 3.1 It is further submitted that while opposing the application the respondent – husband has filed response, Exh.63. All the averments made in the application are simply denied and the stand taken in paragraph 10 is to the effect that he is helping his father in the business and not having any independent income. The claim of the appellant – wife has been discarded on the ground of it being exorbitant and without any evidence. It is submitted that the respondent – husband has knowingly and intentionally not highlighted anything about his business except saying that he is assisting his father. 3.2 It is further submitted that in terms of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Rajnesh vs. Neha reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324, the respondent has filed the affidavit. Bare perusal of it, would suggest that no details are mentioned in any of the columns indicating his income. Regarding proceedings for maintenance, no details are mentioned in column B. It is surprising and shocking that in column C concerning the dependents, detail provided is about the adopted son, aged 6 years, however, the adoption is unilateral and without the consent and knowledge of the wife rendering it illegal as much as if the wife is alive, her consent is must. It is further shocking that in the very said column, the respondent – husband has not indicated anything about the wife and his daughter. Let alone the parents and it is clear that except the adopted son, the respondent – husband does not have any other dependents to maintain. Hence, the only responsibility of the respondent would be to maintain the wife and the daughter. 3.3 It is submitted that similar such information is provided in column E. It is further submitted that column F requires a party to provide the income on oath and it is left blank. The respondent has not provided any details, much less the details of the father, whom Page 3 of 30

C/FA/3812/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/02/2026 he is assisting. It is submitted that in the reply, in paragraph 10, it is a categorical stand taken by the respondent that he is assisting his father, then the corresponding details, ought to have been mentioned in column F. Not disclosing the necessary information in the requisite column, is nothing but a suppression on the part of the respondent – husband. It is next submitted that the stand of the respondent that he is assisting the father, is also unbelievable considering the fact that in the column G, namely, possessing movable and immovable properties, the respondent – husband has shown possessing two shops in his name. Columns G and H, also reflect contradiction for, in column G, the respondent has suggested possessing two shops purchased by him from his mother in the year 2025. While in column H, the detail mentioned is that the shops are purchased in the year 2021 from his mother. It is stated that if the shops are purchased in the year 2025, then, there was no cause available to the respondent to have obtained the loan in the year 2021 from his mother. The loan is stated to have been taken in the year 2021 for two shops, but the shops are purchased only in the year 2025, which fact, is also unbelievable and untrustworthy. It is submitted that it is clearly stated that the shops are self-acquired; however, sale deeds are not produced on the record and a vague statement is made about the purchase from the mother. 3.4 Similarly, in column I of the affidavit, it is left nil and the respondent – husband, has chosen not to provide any details. It is submitted that the requirement of filing the affidavit, is pursuant to the direction issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajnesh vs. Neha (supra) and it is expected that the parties to the proceeding shall provide all the details scrupulously without missing out on any details, so as to facilitate the Family Court to decide the issues namely, maintenance, etc. Page 4 of 30

C/FA/3812/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/02/2026 3.5 While adverting to the paper book, it is further submitted that the nature of the documents of income and properties in favour of the respondent and his family members, would suggest that the respondent is possessing a huge wealth, coupled with decent investment in his name and his family members. It is further submitted that three policies are in the name of the respondent – husband; one, purchased in the year 2012 for an amount of Rs.5 lac; another, purchased in the year 2022 for an amount of Rs.12.5 lac and third, again of the year 2022 for the sum assured, of Rs.10 lac. Interestingly, for all the policies purchased in the name of the respondent – husband, the nominee is his mother. Considering the amount, it would be difficult to believe that the respondent is assisting his father and not earning anything inasmuch as, the policies are not less than Rs.5 lac. It is submitted that collectively, all the policies are more than of Rs.25 lac. It is submitted that apart from the receipt, the respondent has also invested in the stocks and the income for the year 2024-25, is more than Rs.7 lac. It is also submitted that necessary deduction under chapter VIA would be available only if the person is engaged in the business. The figure of the cash in hand also varies from year to year. Although it is claimed that the cash in hand, was for the purpose of offering it to the wife, but that is not correct considering the variation in all the respective years, namely, 2023-24; 2024-25 and 2025-26. 3.6 It is further submitted that the income tax return of the year 2025-26 of the respondent is shown as Rs.5,93,480/-; cash in hand is Rs.12,95,670/-; even against the column of inventories, the amount mentioned is of Rs.17,69,565/-. In the income tax return of the assessment year 2024-25, the income of the appellant is shown of Rs. Rs.7,03,760/-; even under the heading of income from other sources, the respondent has received interest and dividends. Against the column of financial particulars of business, Rs.3,03,984/- Page 5 of 30

C/FA/3812/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/02/2026 is shown against the cash in hand and an amount of Rs.15,56,445/- is shown against the inventories. For the assessment year 2023-24, the income shown of the respondent is Rs.4,90,870/-. Moreover, the respondent has shown profit under section 44AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 of the BS Jewellers to an extent of Rs.5,79,652/- and also claimed deduction and interest on the deposits in the savings account which amount, is also on a higher side. Cash in hand, shown is of Rs.10,41,675/-, and against the inventories, the amount shown is of Rs.13,34,290/-. The information provided under the income tax returns, suggests that the respondent is earning well and it is difficult to believe that he is only assisting his father in the business. 3.7 It is next submitted that as per the record, shops admeasuring 86.19 sq. mts., located in survey no.278 and shop admeasuring 63.38 sq. mts., located in survey no.278 paiki 2, are in the name of the respondent. Similarly, a huge parcel of old tenure land admeasuring 4000 sq. mts. of survey no.277 paiki 1 and a small portion of land, is also possessed by the mother of survey no.240/1 paiki 38, and in the name of the father of the respondent, there is a huge parcel of old tenure land admeasuring 16,946 sq. mts. of survey no. 240/1 paiki 18. In survey no.20/2, the mother possesses 1396.46 sq. mts. of NA land. Therefore, considering the lands possessed by the parents and the respondent, the theory propounded by the respondent that he is earning meagre income, is difficult to believe. 3.8 While inviting the attention of this Court to the photographs on the record, it is submitted that the Fortuner luxury car of Rs.37,92,356/- is purchased by the father of the respondent. The respondent has on social media uploaded the photographs with the Fortuner car and the woman seen is neither a friend nor a cousin but to the information of the appellant, is second wife of the Page 6 of 30

C/FA/3812/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/02/2026 respondent. It is submitted that the details of the adoption indicated in the affidavit of the child aged 6 years is of that woman. It is submitted that without waiting for the final order of divorce, undisputedly the respondent has entered into second marriage and adopted the son. It is submitted that despite the pendency of the application under section 13 of the Act of 1955, the respondent has registered himself for the marriage, published by Shri Samasth Panchal Seva Kendra, Vadodara on 05.03.2023 of the community. In the column of profession and monthly income, the details provided are “jewelry shop” and “Rs.5,00,000/- annually” and shockingly, the respondent has indicated his status as divorcee. 3.9 It is further submitted that if one considers the condition of the appellant – wife on the other hand, it is pitiable. In the application of the respondent, the appellant is shown as housewife, which is clear from the cause-title of the H.M.P. Suit no.03 of 2023. The appellant is staying at her brother’s house, which is clear from the details provided in paragraph (A)(4). It is further submitted that in column E, she has indicated details of the daughter. She has also provided further information about herself and she being unemployed for the reason that she has to be there to look after the daughter, who is hardly four years of age. The fact of her being unemployed is strengthened by her bank statement which gives abysmal picture. The amount shown in the bank statement is either received from her brother or her family members. But there is no consistent and continuous receipt of the salary or any income by her. It is submitted that amount shown in her bank statement is hardly Rs.1,000/- or at the most Rs.5,000/-. In any case, the amount shown is not more than Rs.50,000/-. It is submitted that it is right that the appellant – wife is possessing the degree of BDS; however, after the marriage, she was compelled to leave Page 7 of 30

C/FA/3812/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/02/2026 her practice and it was at the instance of her in-laws that she had to give up her job. 3.10 It is therefore, submitted that the appellant – wife, is entitled to receive maintenance as per the decent standard of the husband. Accordingly, the amount prayed for in the application deserves to be granted; however, the learned Judge has committed gross error in rejecting the application citing the provision of section 106 of the Act of 1872 and shifting the burden on the wife, she having failed to prove the income by producing any cogent and reliable evidence. In fact, all the evidence in the nature of public document, was available and hence, the learned Judge ought not to have taken recourse of section 106 of the Act of 1872. Another ground on which the application is rejected is the application filed by the respondent under section 144 of the BNSS, 2023. The said ground is also erroneous inasmuch as, the issue is no longer res integra. In the case of Rajnesh vs. Neha (supra), the Apex Court has clearly dealt with the aspect of overlapping of jurisdiction and it is held and observed that mere filing of the application, would not disentitle the wife to claim maintenance. It is observed that claim of maintenance can be under any of the provisions, namely, the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 2005”), section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “the Code”) or under the Act of 1955, but the same thereafter, is to be adjusted in any of the proceedings or the order passed by the Family Court. It is submitted that the proceedings under section 144 under the BNSS, 2023, could not have been the base inasmuch as, no interim order of maintenance is not passed, much less the final order, as the application is pending. It is submitted that it was impermissible for the Court below to have refused the maintenance under section 24 of the Act of 1955 more particularly, when all the evidence available Page 8 of 30

C/FA/3812/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/02/2026 on record, would have enabled the judge to have awarded the maintenance. 3.11 Reliance is placed on the judgment in the case of Rajnesh vs. Neha (supra) in connection with filing of the affidavit. It is submitted that the Apex Court has laid down detailed guidelines and the affidavit is required to be filed disclosing the assets and liabilities in the maintenance proceedings. The parties are expected to file affidavits disclosing the correct, accurate and all the information. Even the Apex Court has cautioned that pleadings made in the application for maintenance and replies filed, should be responsible pleadings and if false statements and misrepresentations are made, the Court may consider initiation of proceedings under section 340 of the Code and for contempt of Court. In the case on hand, the details provided by the respondent – husband in the response vis–a– vis the affidavit, are in stark contradiction. Besides, no details are provided, leaving the columns blank. Mere filing of the documents would not be enough. It is submitted that as the appellant is not earning, no reasons or findings are given and the respondent – husband has not challenged and hence, now, it would be impermissible for the respondent – husband to turnaround and challenge the aspect of income of the appellant. It is submitted that considering the principle laid down, the impugned order deserves to quashed and set aside. 4. On the other hand, Mr A.A. Zabuawala, learned advocate with Mr A.M. Pathan, learned advocate for the respondent – husband, while reaffirming what is stated in the affidavit, Exh.66, has submitted that correct and accurate details are provided. It is submitted that the affidavit was filed on 26.09.2025 and on that very day the respondent has produced the list of documents containing the proceedings under section 144(2) of the BNSS, 2023, Page 9 of 30

C/FA/3812/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/02/2026 the policies, three in number, in the name of the respondent, income tax returns of the years 2018-2019, 2021-2022, 2022-2023 to 2025-2026; the bank statements also of respective years and statement of the urban bank. It is submitted that the respondent was possessing three bank accounts and as of now, only two bank accounts are operative and one bank account is, inoperative. 4.1 It is further submitted that the appellant – wife, though had preferred Criminal Misc. Application no.15 of 2025 under the provision of section 144 of the BNSS, 2023, has chosen not to disclose the same and hence, the respondent – husband was compelled to produce the same and that is how, there is a reference and on that basis, the application is rejected. It is submitted that all the documents were made available and read in juxtaposition with the details of the affidavit, it would be incorrect to say that the respondent has suppressed any of the details. Everything was made available and hence, it cannot be said that there was a suppression on the part of the respondent – husband. It is further submitted that the luxurious Fortuner car is purchased on hypothecation so, it cannot be said that it is purchased in cash or by making the payment. It is further submitted that section 24 application is filed and simultaneously, application under section 144 of BNSS, 2023 is also filed and the said application is pending and the evidence would be led and the said proceeding is a proper jurisdictional proceeding. Considering the same, the Court has refused maintenance. However, Mr A.A. Zabuawala, learned advocate, has fairly conceded that there is no bar to grant maintenance under section 24 despite the pendency of the application under section 144 of the BNSS, 2023. 4.2 It is further submitted that the appellant – wife is possessing a degree of BDS and is well qualified, and when she is earning, the Page 10 of 30

C/FA/3812/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/02/2026 appellant – wife cannot claim any maintenance. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of Rupali Gupta vs. Rajat Gupta reported in 2016 Law Suit (Delhi) 5143, while referring to the case of Mamta Jaiswal vs. Rajesh Jaiswal reported in 2000 3 MPLJ 100, it is held and observed that a spouse who is well qualified to get the service immediately with less efforts is not expected to remain idle to squeeze out the other spouse by relieving him of his or her own purse by a cut in the nature of pendente life alimony. It has been further held and observed that when wife is qualified and is earning then, she would disentitle herself of maintenance. 4.3 Reliance is also placed on the judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of Niharika Ghosh @ Niharikha Kundu vs. Shankar Ghosh reported in 2023 Law Suit (Delhi) 3011. It is submitted that considering the principle that if the wife is well qualified and possesses the earning capacity, she would not be entitled for any maintenance. The learned Judge, considering the evidence on record, has rightly exercised the powers and granted the discretionary relief, namely, an amount of Rs.15,000/- towards the litigation expenses and Rs.1,000/- towards the traveling expenses. The maintenance, is rightly denied and does not warrant any interference. 5. In the brief rejoinder, Mr Nisarg N. Jain, learned advocate, has submitted that section 144 of the BNSS, 2023 is at a nascent stage and it is only after production of the documents and evidence that it will be heard and interim maintenance will be decided. So far there is no maintenance decided under section 144 and hence, the rejection is improper and against the principle laid down in the case of Rajnesh vs. Neha (supra) wherein, it is specifically held that the maintenance already awarded can be adjusted in the subsequent Page 11 of 30

C/FA/3812/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/02/2026 proceedings; however, there is no bar. It is submitted that in the pleadings, the stand taken is not clear, so also in the affidavit inasmuch as, the affidavit is bereft of any details. It is submitted that as against this, it is the specific stand taken by the respondent – husband that he is not doing anything and helping his father and has no independent income; however, corresponding details are not mentioned in the affidavit filed by him. Had he been assisting the father, atleast there has to be some reference in the affidavit filed as per the judgment in the case of Rajnesh vs. Neha (supra). It is submitted that leading of evidence under section 144 of the BNSS, 2023 also would not come in picture. Right now, the affidavit has to be filed as per the judgment, which would itself be an evidence and it is thereafter, the issue of maintenance/interim maintenance would be considered. 5.1 While concluding, it is submitted that the reply by respondent was filed on 12.09.2025 and as per paragraph 10 all the details were available; but the affidavit was filed only on 26.09.2025. For the period between 12.09.2025 to 26.09.2025, there is omission and hence, there is suppression. Even after filing of the documents, namely, the income tax returns, the respondent – husband has not stated as to what he is doing. On the basis of the documents, inference can be drawn that he is having the business of jewelry. The judgments cited would be of no help inasmuch as, there was a specific stand taken in the cases before the Delhi High Court wherein the wife was earning, evidence was led and it is thereafter, that the Hon’ble High Courts have either reduced or refused the maintenance. So is not the case in hand as the appellant – wife is unemployed. Even otherwise, it was never the case of the respondent – husband that the appellant – wife is earning and is self–sufficient to maintain herself and the child. In the order under challenge, there is not a whisper about it. The impugned order Page 12 of 30

C/FA/3812/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/02/2026 having been accepted, it would be impermissible for the respondent now to turnaround and challenge the said findings. 6. Heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties. Perused and considered the documents available in the paper-book. This is a classic case of the husband, who believes in overreaching the Court proceedings and subscribes to a my way or the highway philosophy. We say this because there have been number of instances suggesting that the respondent has scant regard for the law, social values and the sanctity of relationships. 7. The facts succinctly stated are thus: The captioned appeal is directed against the order dated 26.09.2025 whereby, the application, Exh.57 filed by the appellant – wife seeking maintenance of Rs.30,000 and Rs.20,000/- for her and daughter, respectively, is rejected. The ground which weighed with the learned Judge while rejecting the application are two-fold, namely, that as per the provisions of section 106 the Act of 1872 the burden of proving the income is upon the appellant – wife and she has not produced any cogent and reliable evidence; the second ground is pendency of Criminal Misc. Application no.15 of 2025 under the provision of section 144 (2) of the BNSS, 2023 before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhabua. The Family Court was of the opinion that the application cannot be considered and rejected it; however, allowed Rs.15,000/- towards the litigation expenses and Rs.1,000/- towards the traveling expenses, per appearance to the appellant – wife. It is this order by which the appellant – wife is aggrieved. In the opinion of this Court, both the grounds by which the application is rejected, are erroneous. 8. In the petition filed under section 13 of the Act of 1955, seeking divorce, the respondent – husband admits to the marriage Page 13 of 30

C/FA/3812/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/02/2026 with the appellant which took place in the year 2017, so also the birth of the child. Allegations are made that after some time of the marriage, the behaviour of the appellant – wife changed and she was engaging in altercation in trivial matters. It is also alleged that the qualifications between them, was also an issue. In the application filed seeking divorce, a specific stand is taken by the respondent – husband that the appellant – wife was in the habit of demanding money and the respondent – husband, was giving her the said money. Moreover, reference is also made of the desire of brother of the appellant – wife for a four-wheeler car and the pressure exerted by her. It is stated that the respondent has secured the loan for the purpose of Mahindra XUV–300 four-wheeler, as the brother did not pay the installments, the respondent – husband was paying the same. Inter alia, with all these allegations, the application was filed seeking divorce, raising the grievance that after the marriage, which was performed on 23.11.2017, the appellant has not stayed as a wife and on 03.05.2021, she left the house. 9. During the pendency of the suit, the appellant – wife on 29.08.2025 has preferred an application, under section 24 of the Act of 1955, Exh.57 seeking maintenance, which was resisted by the respondent – husband by filing a response on 12.09.2025. The applications, Exhs.57 and 59 were posted for hearing on 19.09.2025; on which date owing to the non-availability of the Court, the matter was not taken up. The matter was kept for evidence on 26.09.2025 and on that day, written submissions were filed in connection with Applications, Exhs.57 and 59, so also the affidavit of the respondent in terms of the guidelines enumerated in the case of Rajnesh vs. Neha (supra). From the rojkam, it appears that a request was made by and on behalf of the learned advocate appearing for the appellant for an adjournment with respect to the Page 14 of 30

C/FA/3812/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/02/2026 applications, Exh.57 and 59; however, it was refused. The rojkam further suggests that application, Exh.57 was rejected by passing the impugned order dated 26.09.2025 and Exh.59 application was partly allowed. 10. When on 26.09.2025, the respondent has produced the affidavit together with the documents, it was expected of the Court below to have considered those documents while determining the maintenance and not left it by referring to the provision of section 106 of the Act of 1872. The documents, namely, the income tax return, the status of the respondent etc. were sufficient to have the Court to determine the interim maintenance application under section 24. It is also required to be noted that the matter was kept on 26.09.2025 for the purpose of evidence of the other side and when the evidence was made available, the learned Judge has selectively considered the evidence and rejected the application shifting the burden on the wife that she has failed to produce any evidence of the income. It is interesting to note that in para 6.1 of the judgment, the learned judge, accepted the stand of the appellant – wife about the physical and mental torture inflicted upon her by the respondent. It is prima facie observed that the wife was constrained to leave her matrimonial home and is leaving the destitute dependable life sans any source of income. When the learned judge has accepted that the appellant – wife was subjected to cruelty and there is no source of income available, the first thing the learned Judge should have considered, is awarding the maintenance to the wife and the daughter as per the standard of the respondent. In fact, the evidence of the income was very much available by way of income tax returns and hence, no further exercise was required to be undertaken by the appellant – wife. Therefore, the reasoning in the order referring to section 106 and shifting the burden on the appellant – wife, was incorrect approach Page 15 of 30

C/FA/3812/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/02/2026 of the Family Court and the application, ought not to have been rejected only on that ground. 11. Adverting to the aspect of pendency of the application under section 144 (2) of BNSS, 2023, it is required to be noted that the issue is no longer res integra. In the case of Rajnesh vs. Neha (supra), the Apex Court, while considering the overlapping of the jurisdiction, has clearly held that wife can make a claim for maintenance under different statutes. Paragraphs 60 and 61 of the judgment read thus:- “60. It is well settled that a wife can make a claim for maintenance underdifferent statutes. For instance, there is no bar to seek maintenance both under the D.V. Act and Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., or under H.M.A. It would, however, be inequitable to direct the husband to pay maintenance under each of the proceedings, independent of the relief granted in a previous proceeding. If maintenance is awarded to the wife in a previously instituted proceeding, she is under a legal obligation to disclose the same in a subsequent proceeding for maintenance, which may be filed under another enactment. While deciding the quantum of maintenance in the subsequent proceeding, the civil court/family court shall take into account the maintenance awarded in any previously instituted proceeding, and determine the maintenance payable to the claimant. 61. To overcome the issue of overlapping jurisdiction, and avoid conflicting orders being passed in different proceedings, we direct that in a subsequent maintenance proceeding, the applicant shall disclose the previous maintenance proceeding, and the orders passed therein, so that the Court would take into consideration the maintenance already awarded in the previous proceeding, and grant an adjustment or set-off of the said amount. If the order passed in the previous proceeding requires any modification or variation, the party would be required to move the concerned court in the previous proceeding.”

It is settled proposition that while deciding the quantum of maintenance in the subsequent proceeding, the civil Court/family Court shall take into account the maintenance awarded in any previously instituted proceeding and determine the maintenance payable to the claimant. In the case on hand, citing the pendency of application under section 144, was an error committed by the Page 16 of 30

C/FA/3812/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/02/2026 learned Judge inasmuch as, nothing was determined in the proceedings and the application was pending consideration. Even today, during the course of the submission, it is reported that reply is filed; however, final arguments are yet not made. In the absence of any amount of maintenance determined and in the absence of any bar in filing the application, the learned judge, ought not to have rejected the application citing the pendency of the proceedings under section 144 of BNSS, 2023. Assuming that the application under section 144 is decided and the maintenance is awarded, the proceedings under section 24, being independent of the proceeding under section 144, the learned judge could have directed adjustment of the maintenance already awarded under section 144. Mere pendency of the application could not have been the ground for rejecting the application under section 24 of the Act of 1955. 12. It is required to be noted that on 26.09.2025, the respondent – husband has filed the affidavit and all the columns in the affidavit are Nil with no information provided. It is true that together with the affidavit, the respondent-husband has filed the list of the documents, namely, the documents of the Criminal Misc. Application no.15 of 2025 filed under the provision of section 144 (2) of the BNSS, 2023; the copies of the policies of the years 2012 and 2022; income tax returns of the assessment years 2018-2019, 2021-2022 to 2025-2026 and two bank statements. Perceptibly, the affidavit filed by the respondent does not carry a single detail; rather there is not a whisper in the columns wherein, the respondent – husband is obligated to provide all the details. No details are provided in column B regarding the proceedings of maintenance. In column C the respondent has provided the details of adopted son. Similar, details are provided in column E. Unfortunately, the respondent has not stated anything about his wife, i.e. the appellant and the Page 17 of 30

C/FA/3812/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/02/2026 daughter. Even in column F wherein, the respondent is under an obligation to provide the information about the income on oath, the respondent has an audacity to leave it blank. In the columns against G and H, the respondent has provided the details of two shops; however, there appears to be a lot of contradiction and discrepancies in both the columns considering the fact that two shops are stated to have been purchased in the year 2025, while for the very two shops, it is stated to have obtained loan in the year 2021 from his mother. Rest of the columns are totally blank. The respondent – husband was happy with producing the documents together with the affidavit. 13. It may be noted that the Apex Court, in the case of Rajnesh vs. Neha (supra) has laid down broad guidelines and the idea behind laying down the guidelines was the need felt for uniformity. A uniform format of the affidavit of disclosure of the assets and liabilities, is required to be filed in the maintenance proceedings and in furtherance thereof, the Apex Court, has laid down various parameters. It is expected, rather obligation is cast upon both the parties to disclose the assets and liabilities, as per the annexures and enclosures, indicating the details of the pending proceedings, rather details as indicated therein. It also provides that the income of one party is often not within the knowledge of other spouse and the Court would be at liberty to invoke section 106 of the Act of 1872, if necessary. As per one of the parameters, the pleadings made in the application for maintenance and the reply filed, should be responsible. Any false statements or misrepresentations are made, the Court may consider initiation of proceedings under section 340 of the Code and for the contempt of the Court. Therefore, it is evident that the respondent – husband, was under an obligation to have provided correct and accurate information; however, except putting the columns blank; barring columns C, E, G Page 18 of 30

C/FA/3812/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/02/2026 and H, the respondent, has not provided all the relevant information. Though the respondent has produced all the documents, what the respondent was expected was to have produced each and every minutest detail in the affidavit as required in the judgment in the case of Rajnesh vs. Neha (supra), but the respondent did not do so. Had the respondent genuinely provided all the information, it would have facilitated the Family Court to have determined the maintenance to the appellant – wife, who is ousted from her matrimonial house since 03.05.2021 which aspect is accepted by the Family Court. 14. Briefly touching the status of the respondent, it may be noted that the LIC policies, one of the year 2012, suggests that a policy of Rs.5 lac has been assured in the name of the respondent wherein, nominee is the mother. Another two policies are of the year 2022 and the amount assured is Rs.12.5 lac and Rs. 10 lac. It is difficult to fathom that a person who is earning and assisting the father, would have secured policies of such a huge amount running into lacs. The income tax returns of the appellant, also suggest a decent income earned by him. For the assessment year 2023–24, the income earned by the respondent, is Rs. 5,79,652/-. The respondent has claimed profit under section 44AB on behalf of BS Jewelers. Also, the respondent has received interest on deposits in the savings account of a decent amount against the financial particulars of business. An amount of Rs.10,41,675/- is shown as cash in hand for the assessment year 2023-24. The total income of the respondent for the assessment year 2023-24, was Rs. 5,79,652/-. Section 80C. deduction under chapter VIA of the Income Tax Act is availed on the LIC premium for an amount of Rs.93,440/- which, would be the personal income of the respondent. It appears that only with a view to falling in a slab, by which the respondent would be getting exemption, that the amount is shown under the deduction and that Page 19 of 30

C/FA/3812/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/02/2026 is how the actual income for the assessment year 2023-24 of the respondent is shown as Rs.4,90,865/- after deducting Rs.93,440/-. This clearly suggests that the respondent, has decent income so as to maintain the wife and the daughter. Similar is the position for the assessment year 2024-25, the respondent has availed of the profit under section 44AD of BS Jewelers. Under various heads, the income has been mentioned and the total income shown is of Rs.7,03,760/-. Besides, against the inventories and cash in hand, the amount mentioned is Rs.15,56,445/- and Rs.3,03,984/-. It appears that the respondent has also invested in stock in trade and the amount mentioned is Rs. 15,56,445/-. For the assessment year 2025-26 the income of the respondent is Rs.5,93,480/-. Against the heading cash in hand, the amount mentioned is Rs.12,95,670/- and against the inventories, the amount mentioned, is Rs.17,69,565/-. 15. Over and above the income tax returns, even the policies purchased are also of huge amount. The aspect of the respondent possessing two shops is also not in dispute, which is clear from the documents placed on record, namely the 7/12 forms of the revenue records. As per village form no.7, there are two shops possessed by the respondent, one situated in survey no.278 admeasuring 86.19 sq. mts. and another admeasuring 66.38 sq. mts. situated in survey no.278 paiki 2. Besides, the parents with whom the respondent is staying, also possess huge parcels of land. Land bearing survey no.271 paiki 1 is admeasuring 4000 sq. mts. in the name of the mother of the respondent. Another small parcel of land admeasuring 14 sq. mts. again in the name of the mother is of survey no.240/1 paiki 18. The father of the respondent is having a huge parcel of land of survey no. 240/1 paiki 38 admeasuring 16,948 sq. mts. One more parcel of NA land is in the name of the mother – Hinaben Balmukesh Panchal admeasuring 1396.46 sq. mts. It is not the case of the respondent -husband that he is not staying with his parents Page 20 of 30

C/FA/3812/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/02/2026 Even the photographs placed on record together with the paper book suggest the bond between the respondent – husband and his parents. 16. In the opinion of this Court, the respondent – husband has provided the income in a very complex manner, selectively giving the details. In the advertisement issued for the purpose of selecting the future prospects, it is his own case that he is engaged in jewellery business and earning Rs.5 lac, which aspect is strengthened by income tax returns filed by him of the respective years. The shops possessed by him, are not in dispute, so also the immovable properties in the names of the family members. It is not the case of the respondent – husband that he is not staying with the family members. On the contrary, it is a specific case that he is helping his father in the business of jewellery. Therefore, it appears that the respondent – husband has tried to avoid giving a correct information before the Family Court and even before this Court. Therefore, based on the documents placed on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the respondent-husband has left no stone unturned in avoiding payment of maintenance to the wife. Such conduct is highly unfortunate casting serious doubt upon his trustworthiness. 17. At this stage, the aspect of the income of the wife also needs to be examined. It is the case of the appellant – wife that she is qualified and possessing the degree of BDS; however, after the marriage, she was required by the in-laws to stop the practice. Acceding to, rather accepting the call from the in-laws, she discontinued the practice. She has unequivocally denied that she is practicing and which fact, is strengthened by the petition filed by Page 21 of 30

C/FA/3812/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/02/2026 the respondent – husband himself wherein, in the cause-title against the details of the wife, she has been shown as doing household work. Subsequently, in the year 2020, the daughter was born. After the birth of the child, she was driven out and since the year 2021, she is staying with her elder brother. In the affidavit filed by her dated 29.08.2025, against the column of educational qualification, she has indicated that she possesses the degree of BDS. Against the item no.4, as to where she is staying, the address mentioned is her parent’s home with her brother. In the affidavit, against the column F, she has categorically stated that she is not doing any job. On oath she has stated that she is not having any other income or property other than mentioned in the affidavit. Besides, as per the affidavit, the assurance was extended by the appellant – wife that she would be submitting the bank statement, which is submitted for the period from the year 2023 to 2025. The amount mentioned is Rs.5,000/- and amount shown has not exceeded Rs.50,000/-. Therefore, it cannot be said that the appellant – wife is earning any income or that the amount which she has received from her family members, is sufficient to maintain herself and her daughter. 18. The Apex Court in the case of Rajnesh vs. Neha (supra), has provided the broad guidelines, requiring the parties to give respective details about their income, job, properties possessed etc. In paragraph 60, while dealing with the aspect of directions of overlapping jurisdictions, the Apex Court has also touched the aspect of payment of interim maintenance. It is provided that the party claiming maintenance should be required to file a concise application for interim maintenance with limited pleadings along with an Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities before the concerned Court. The said requirement has been construed to be a mandatory requirement. On the basis of the pleadings filed by both parties and the affidavits of disclosure, it is noted that the Court Page 22 of 30

C/FA/3812/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/02/2026 would be in a position to make an objective assessment of the approximate amount to be awarded towards maintenance at the interim stage. Two aspects can be culled out; firstly, mandatory requirement, requiring the parties to file affidavit of disclosure of assets and liabilities, and secondly, the affidavits would enable the Court to do an objective assessment of the approximate amount to be awarded. In paragraph 72, the Apex Court has observed thus: “72. Keeping in mind the need for a uniform format of Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities to be filed in maintenance proceedings, this Court considers it necessary to frame guidelines in exercise of our powers under Article 136 read with Article 142 of the Constitution of India: 72.1 (a) The Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities annexed at Enclosures I, II and III of this judgment, as may be applicable, shall be filed by the parties in all maintenance proceedings, including pending proceedings before the Family Court / District Court / Magistrate’s Court concerned, as the case may be, throughout the country; 72.2 (b)The applicant making the claim for maintenance will be required to file a concise application accompanied with the Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets; 72.3 (c) The respondent must submit the reply alongwith the Affidavit of Disclosure within a maximum period of four weeks. The Courts may not grant more than two opportunities for submission of the Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities to the respondent. If the respondent delays in filing the reply with the Affidavit, and seeks more than two adjournments for this purpose, the Court may consider exercising the power to strike off the defence of the respondent, if the conduct is found to be wilful and contumacious in delaying the proceedings. On the failure to file the Affidavit within the prescribed time, the Family Court may proceed to decide the application for maintenance on the basis of the Affidavit filed by the applicant and the pleadings on record; 72.4 (d) The above format may be modified by the Court concerned, if the exigencies of a case require the same. It would be left to the judicial discretion of the Court concerned to issue necessary directions in this regard. Page 23 of 30

C/FA/3812/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/02/2026 72.5(e) If apart from the information contained in the Affidavits of Disclosure, any further information is required, the Court concerned may pass appropriate orders in respect thereof. 72.6 (f) If there is any dispute with respect to the declaration made in the Affidavit of Disclosure, the aggrieved party may seek permission of the Court to serve interrogatories, and seek production of relevant documents from the opposite party under Order 11 CPC. On filing of the Affidavit, the Court may invoke the provisions of Order 10 C.P.C or Section 165 of the Evidence Act, 1872, if it considers it necessary to do so. The income of one party is often not within the knowledge of the other spouse. The Court may invoke Section 106 of the Evidence Act, 1872 if necessary, since the income, assets and liabilities of the spouse are within the personal knowledge of the party concerned. 72.7 (g) If during the course of proceedings, there is a change in the financial status of any party, or there is a change of any relevant circumstances, or if some new information comes to light, the party may submit an amended / supplementary affidavit, which would be considered by the court at the time of final determination. 72.8 (h) The pleadings made in the applications for maintenance and replies filed should be responsible pleadings; if false statements and misrepresentations are made, the Court may consider initiation of proceeding under Section 340 CrPC, and for contempt of Court. 72.9 (i) In case the parties belong to the Economically Weaker Sections (“EWS”), or are living Below the Poverty Line (“BPL”), or are casual labourers, the requirement of filing the Affidavit would be dispensed with. 72.10 (j)The Family Court / District Court / Magistrate’s Court must make an endeavour to decide the I.A. for Interim Maintenance by a reasoned order, within a period of four to six months at the latest, after the Affidavits of Disclosure have been filed before the court. 72.11 (k) A professional Marriage Counsellor must be made available in every Family Court.” 22. In paragraph 72.2, the party making a claim for the maintenance is required to file a concise application together with the affidavit, which in the case on hand, has been done by the appellant – wife. In paragraph 72.3, obligation is cast upon the Page 24 of 30

C/FA/3812/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/02/2026 respondent to file a reply along with the affidavit of disclosure within the maximum period of four weeks. Some leeway is provided to the Court, if exigencies of a case so require and in the event of the Court requiring any further information, the Court may pass appropriate orders in that behalf. Therefore, as per the direction contained in paragraph 72.3, obligation is cast upon the respondent to file the affidavit of disclosure within the stipulated period. Filing of the affidavit of disclosure means giving all the details available with him and not holding back any details and simply providing the documents in connection therewith. 23. The Apex Court, in paragraph 72.8, while taking care of the situation in the event the parties do not disclose the full and accurate information, has observed that pleadings made in the application for maintenance and the replies should be responsible pleadings and if false statements and misrepresentations are made, the Court may consider initiation of the proceedings under section 340 of Code and for contempt of Court. Therefore, one thing is clear that the parties to the proceedings under section 24 of the Act of 1955, for interim maintenance, are expected to provide correct, accurate and genuine information and would not be permitted to hold back any information from the Court, as holding of the information may dissuade the Court from determining the correct amount of maintenance as is happened in the case on hand. At the cost of repetition, it is required to be noted that the respondent – husband was under an obligation to file an affidavit; however, except leaving blanks, the respondent has not provided the correct, full and accurate information, instead, has submitted the documents. 24. Having held that the respondent – husband has failed to file affidavit in terms of the judgment of the Apex Court, this Court Page 25 of 30

C/FA/3812/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/02/2026 would like to deal with the aspect of the maintenance to be awarded to the appellant – wife and the daughter. Unfortunately, the respondent – husband has literally disowned his own daughter for all these years, rather since her birth. As this Court has concluded that there is no independent income of the appellant – wife to maintain herself and the daughter, considering the details and information regarding the income discernible from the record available, this Court deems it appropriate that the amount of maintenance as prayed for by the appellant – wife, deserves to be granted, that is, Rs.30,000/- per month to the appellant – wife and Rs.20,000/- per month for the daughter. It is not in dispute that the daughter is aged 4 years and would need some expenses towards her education and extracurricular activities etc. inasmuch as, she is fully entitled to have the maintenance as per the standard of her father. In view of the above discussion, the respondent – husband is directed to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- per month to the appellant – wife and the daughter. 25. Adverting to the issue of alleged second marriage of the respondent and/or having the companion, it is pertinent to note that in the application under section 24 of the Act of 1955 filed by the appellant – wife, inter alia, praying for the maintenance, it is a specific stand taken by her that she was driven out from her matrimonial house on 03.05.2021 with the daughter, as the respondent – husband was interested in another woman and wanted her to be his companion. It is noteworthy that application seeking divorce under section 13 of the Act of 1955, is yet to be adjudicated. 26. Although it is claimed that the respondent has not entered into second marriage, the cross-examination of the respondent – husband, Exh.25 gives an interesting reading wherein, it is admitted about registering himself with Shree Panchal Seva Kendra. In the Page 26 of 30

C/FA/3812/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/02/2026 booklet published of the year 2023 by the Shree Panchal Seva Kendra, Vadodara, at page 56, at item no.223, the details of the respondent – husband are mentioned. The date of birth mentioned is 12.02.1994, the qualification is B.Com pass and in the profession, the respondent has stated to possess a jewellery shop and the annual income is Rs.5 lac. In the last column, against the marital status, it is shown as having divorced; however, an excuse is offered that there is a printing mistake committed by the Kendra. However, the respondent has not taken any steps for correction of the so- called printing mistake. When the application is pending consideration before the Court below, how the respondent could have shown his status as a divorcee? Moreover, the photographs produced with the paper book, supports the submission of the appellant – wife, that he has either entered into second marriage or started living with another woman. It is further accepted by the respondent that in the wedding invitation card of his cousin brother, along with his name, name of another woman is mentioned together with his adopted son. On the social media platform, the photographs of the respondent – husband and the woman, were posted, which has received best wishes from the family members, referring them as husband and wife. Those documents have been exhibited, namely, Exhs.38, 39 and 40. 27. At this stage, the details mentioned in the affidavit, are also worth taking note of, wherein, in column C, for the dependent, the respondent-husband has provided the details of a son, aged 6 years as an adopted son; in column E, apart from his own daughter, the details of the adopted son is further mentioned. In the said column, the liability of the respondent – husband, for maintaining the adopted son aged 6 years, is shown as Rs. 3,000/-. Unsurprisingly, the respondent – husband, is not paying anything to the daughter. Clearly, the respondent – husband, has adopted the son. The issue Page 27 of 30

C/FA/3812/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/02/2026 is when the wife is still alive and the divorce is not yet granted, as to how the respondent – husband could have undertaken the process of adoption of the son. Be that as it may. The documents placed on record and more particularly, the excerpts of the social media, this Court is of the prima facie opinion that the respondent despite the subsistence of the first marriage has entered into a second marriage. Photographs (Annexure-K) pages 19 to 22 of the paper- book are self explanatory. When the divorce petition is pending and the divorce is not yet granted, it is difficult to believe as to how the respondent – husband could have started his journey with the new companion. This Court is not observing anything on the validity or otherwise of the second marriage, but the fact remains that he has moved ahead in life. 28. In view of the above discussion, the appeal deserves to be partly allowed with following directions and with a cost of Rs.50,000/- to be paid to the appellant – wife by the respondent – husband within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order:- i. The respondent – husband is directed to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- per month (Rs.30,000/- towards the appellant – wife and Rs.20,000/- towards the daughter) from the date of the application, Exh.57; ii. The litigation expenses awarded by the Family Court, in the opinion of this Court is on lower side, and the same, is enhanced from Rs.15,000/- to Rs.50,000/- to be paid to the appellant – wife by the respondent – husband within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this judgment. iii. Rs.1,000/- towards the travelling expenses is enhanced to Page 28 of 30

C/FA/3812/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/02/2026 Rs.5,000/- per appearance before the Family Court and to be paid to the appellant – wife by the respondent – husband. 29. While concluding, we would like to place on record the development which took place during the pendency of the captioned appeal. This Court, tried to resolve the matter to bring it to an amicable quietus and hence, interacted with the parties, namely, the appellant-wife, the daughter and the respondent-husband. The respondent – husband maintained the stand that he is employed by his father in the jewellery shop and is earning a meagre amount. This stand compelled the Court to caution the respondent that making an incorrect statement would not be in the interest of healthy resolution of the dispute; however, the respondent exhibiting an adamant attitude continued with the stand that he is not earning any income. When he was confronted with the income aspect, a lame response was offered that everything belongs to his father and his family members and not him. The stand taken by the respondent – husband and the theory propounded, are based on falsehood. This Court, has gathered an impression that “the respondent – husband, is a poor son of a wealthy father”. The respondent – husband has exhibited the approach rather an attitude not befitting a responsible husband and an ideal father, who has constantly, despite being all the paraphernalia available avoided the payment of maintenance to the appellant – wife and his daughter. Furthermore, from the paragraphs indicated hereinabove, it is clear that the respondent was obliged to provide the correct, accurate, genuine and full information and failing to provide information in terms of the direction contained in paragraph 72.8, would subject the party to proceedings under section 340 of the Code and for contempt of court. This Court is, therefore, of the prima facie opinion that, by not taking a fair stand in the aplication and not filing affidavit in terms of paragraph 72.8, the respondent – husband Page 29 of 30

C/FA/3812/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/02/2026 has shown scant regard to the direction of the Apex Court and has committed a contempt. Hence, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the Registry to place the matter before the Hon’ble bench taking up contempt matters. 30. Connected application, if any, also stands disposed of. 31. Record and proceedings, if any received, to be sent back to the concerned court forthwith. (SANGEETA K. VISHEN,J) (NISHA M. THAKORE,J) BINOY B PILLAI Page 30 of 30 Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judges. Digitally signed by: BINOY BALAKRISHNA PILLAI(HC00183), PRINCIPAL PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 16/04/2026 14:53:51