District Court orders conditional maintenance and fines wife in separation dispute

The District Court ordered monthly maintenance of ₹5,000 for Ananya Menon for two years after her separation from Rohan Kulkarni, but said payment for any month would depend entirely on whether he could afford it. Menon had sought reasonable monthly support and payment for three months she said had gone unpaid.

In the judgment signed on October 31, 2026, presiding judge Sahil also imposed a ₹20,000 fine on Menon. The judgment's stated reason for the fine is incomplete.

The judgment identified the parties' separation as the basis for providing maintenance. It did not explain how the ₹5,000 figure or the two-year period was determined.

The order also said Kulkarni would not be compelled to pay in every month: payment would depend on his financial circumstances and ability to afford the amount. It did not specify how that assessment would be made.

The judgment described the fine as being for manipulating facts, but the sentence setting out its reason ends with an incomplete phrase. It did not identify the facts concerned or complete that explanation.

Menon said the couple separated in January 2025 and that she moved into a rented flat. She sought support for February through April, saying Kulkarni had promised ₹25,000 a month but paid nothing during that period.

In court, Menon described a January message exchange in which she asked whether Kulkarni could manage ₹25,000 each month. She acknowledged that his reply did not expressly confirm an agreement, and asked the court to consider the message and a rental deposit receipt when deciding support.

Menon said her part-time design work was irregular and her rent was ₹18,000 a month. She acknowledged a larger client payment in March but said it included reimbursement for project expenses.

Kulkarni denied promising ₹25,000 in ongoing monthly payments. He said his ₹50,000 transfer helped Menon settle into the flat and cover immediate expenses, and that he understood it would count against support. He also pointed to her March payment and said a monthly loan payment reduced what he could afford.

The parties disagreed about the purpose of the ₹50,000 January transfer: Menon said it was for a refundable rental security deposit, while Kulkarni said it should be credited against support.

The formal judgment did not expressly resolve that dispute or address Menon's claim for three months of arrears. It also did not state whether the transfer should be credited against the maintenance ordered.