Pune Family Court rejects ₹5,000 maintenance claim after agreed rent payment

The Family Court, Pune dismissed Revati Kulkarni’s claim for an additional ₹5,000 in February maintenance, finding that Nikhil Kulkarni had satisfied the full ₹12,000 obligation through two agreed payments: ₹5,000 to her landlord and ₹7,000 directly to her.

The dispute was not whether the money had been transferred, but whether paying the landlord counted as maintenance. The court found that the couple’s WhatsApp exchange met the interim order’s requirement for a written agreement before a direct expense payment could be credited.

No further payment was ordered on the claim. The decision neither changed the monthly maintenance amount nor authorised deductions in future months.

Nikhil bore the burden of establishing his entitlement to the ₹5,000 credit. The court read the messages alongside the bank confirmations, recognising that each answered a different question: the messages explained the arrangement, while the banking records showed it had been carried out.

In the exchange, Nikhil asked how to send February’s ₹12,000. Revati directed him to pay ₹5,000 to the landlord and the remaining ₹7,000 to her, and he accepted. The bank confirmations established payments to those recipients on 3 and 4 February 2026 respectively.

The court reasoned that the order required written agreement, not a particular document format or technical wording expressly describing the landlord payment as maintenance. The question about February’s stated total, followed by instructions dividing that exact amount, established the payment’s purpose.

Revati was correct that bank records alone did not prove purpose. But the written exchange supplied that explanation, and the transfers corroborated performance. Her acknowledgment that she had agreed to the specific split was consistent with the messages rather than a substitute for evidence.

Revati relied on the order’s written-agreement condition. She argued that proof of a landlord payment was not, by itself, proof that maintenance had been discharged, and initially questioned whether the messages established the required agreement.

In later submissions, she accepted that the exchange supported an agreed February split. She maintained her request for ₹5,000 only if the court found that exchange insufficient under the order, while stressing that it did not permit future deductions.

Nikhil argued that the messages preceded the transfers and identified the month, total amount, recipients and individual payments. He sought recognition of compliance for February alone, not a reduction or permanent alteration of his obligation.

The accepted interim order required Nikhil to pay ₹12,000 each month and expressly allowed direct expense payments to count where the parties agreed in writing. That particular term framed the dispute; the judgment did not establish a general entitlement to deduct rent from maintenance.

The ruling resolves only the February balance. Its narrow distinction is between changing an ongoing maintenance obligation and proving that one month’s obligation was fulfilled through an agreed payment arrangement.