Pune Family Court grants ₹8,000 interim maintenance amid uncertainty over salary and expenses

The Family Court, Pune has directed Nikhil Salunkhe to pay Kavita Salunkhe ₹8,000 a month in interim support, partly granting her request for ₹12,000. It also rejected his proposal to limit support to ₹6,000 on the available evidence.

Both spouses accepted that temporary support should be paid while they lived separately. The dispute was how much: Kavita relied on her household budget and a ₹40,000 payroll transfer, while Nikhil challenged whether either document established a reliable monthly figure.

The court awarded no additional amount, interest or costs. Its order was confined to interim support, without determining either spouse’s exact ongoing income or expenses.

Kavita’s expense sheet listed ₹16,000 in costs, including rent, food, utilities, travel and medicines. But the ₹2,000 medicine entry was an acknowledged one-time purchase. Removing it left estimated recurring costs of ₹14,000.

The judge treated the itemized sheet as meaningful evidence of need, but not independent verification of every expense. It also recorded approximately ₹4,000 from alterations work, without establishing whether that income was regular. These limits prevented a finding that the claimed ₹12,000 monthly shortfall was precisely proved.

The salary screenshot presented a different uncertainty. It showed Nikhil’s name, a payroll date and a ₹40,000 transfer for one month, but the component details were cropped out. It established receipt of that money—not that the entire sum was regular take-home salary.

Nikhil’s explanation that ₹8,000 represented reimbursements was equally unverified. The court accepted neither ₹40,000 nor ₹32,000 as his proven regular monthly income. The transfer nevertheless showed some resources, while nothing reliably established ₹6,000 as his payment ceiling.

Applying the supplied rules requiring support to reflect both need and ability to pay, the judge selected ₹8,000 as a proportionate interim amount on the limited record, rather than accepting either side’s proposed figure as an exact calculation.

Kavita argued that earnings of about ₹4,000 against expenses of ₹16,000 left a ₹12,000 gap. She relied on her expense sheet and the payroll screenshot, and maintained that Nikhil could contribute the requested amount even if his net salary were ₹32,000. She also emphasized the importance of support to her dignity.

Nikhil accepted the obligation to provide temporary support but sought a materially lower amount. He challenged the screenshot’s completeness and the inclusion of a one-time medicine purchase in the monthly budget.

Although he initially promised a salary breakdown, Nikhil later said he could not supply it or give a reliable date for doing so. He acknowledged that his reimbursement explanation remained only a possibility and did not prove that ₹6,000 was all he could afford.

Kavita earns money by adjusting or repairing garments, with work hours varying according to available jobs. Her self-prepared budget and the cropped payroll screenshot were the central documents before the court.

Both sides ultimately said no further supporting proof was available. The resulting order addresses immediate support on that record; it does not resolve the composition of Nikhil’s payroll transfer or independently establish Kavita’s recurring budget.