Bombay High Court on Insolvency and Maintenance Orders.

The Bombay High Court dismissed a petition under the Presidency-Towns Insolvency Act, 1909, filed by the husband seeking to be declared insolvent to avoid paying maintenance arrears. The Court held that maintenance payable under Section 125 CrPC does not constitute a “debt” under insolvency law. Further, the Court emphasized that the Insolvency Act cannot be used to indirectly frustrate or stay a subsisting Family Court order, and adjudication under Section 10 is discretionary, not automatic. Filing of a self-petition alone does not entitle a debtor to be declared insolvent.

1. The petitioner-husband, a dance teacher in Mumbai, married the respondent-wife on 28 January 2014.
2. Disputes arose within two months, leading to Family Court proceedings.
3. The Family Court, Mumbai, by order dated 17 May 2021, directed the petitioner to pay ₹25,000 per month as maintenance under Section 125 CrPC, effective 15 June 2015.
4. The petitioner challenged this order through a Criminal Revision Petition, which is pending.
5. Claiming an income of only ₹12,000–₹15,000 per month, the petitioner sought:
6. Declaration as an insolvent under the Presidency-Towns Insolvency Act, 1909;
7. Stay of execution of the Family Court maintenance order.

1. Discretionary Power: Section 10 provides the Court may adjudicate insolvency; it is not mandatory, and filing a petition does not automatically entitle the petitioner to be declared insolvent.
2. Jurisdictional Bar: Section 11(a) requires the debtor to be imprisoned in execution of a decree at the time of petition. The petitioner was not imprisoned, thus the Court lacked jurisdiction.
3. Maintenance Is Not a Debt: Reliance on Hemavathiamma v. Kumaravela Mudalia (AIR 1968 Mys 111)—maintenance arises from a moral/legal duty, not contractual debt; an order for maintenance cannot form the basis of insolvency proceedings.
4. Abuse of Process: Using insolvency proceedings to stall or frustrate Family Court orders is impermissible. The Insolvency Act cannot circumvent ongoing criminal revision proceedings or relieve the petitioner of personal obligations.
5. Specific vs General Provision: Section 9(2), covering decrees/orders for payment, overrides Section 9(1)(f), a general self-petition provision. The petitioner cannot rely solely on Section 9(1)(f).
6. Delay and Credibility Issues: Petition filed two years after Family Court order, with questionable claims regarding loans and income, suggesting an attempt to avoid maintenance liability.

1. Section 14(1)(a), Presidency-Towns Insolvency Act, 1909 – Minimum debt threshold for filing a petition.
2. Section 9(1)(f), Presidency-Towns Insolvency Act, 1909 – Filing self-petition as an act of insolvency (general provision).
3. Section 9(2), Presidency-Towns Insolvency Act, 1909 – Acts of insolvency based on decree/order (specific provision).
4. Section 10, Presidency-Towns Insolvency Act, 1909 – Court’s power to adjudicate insolvent (discretionary).
5. Section 11(a), Presidency-Towns Insolvency Act, 1909 – Jurisdictional restrictions requiring imprisonment in execution.
6. Section 45(1)(d), Presidency-Towns Insolvency Act, 1909 – Effect of discharge; does not relieve maintenance liability.
7. Section 125, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Maintenance of wife.

1. Petition dismissed.
2. The petitioner cannot be declared insolvent to avoid maintenance obligations.
3. No order as to costs.

Citation: 2025:BHC-OS:21502

Case: Mehul Jagdish Trivedi v. Manisha Mehul Trivedi

Court: High Court of Judicature at Bombay

Coram: Justice Jitendra Jain

Date of Decision: 20 November 2025

Insolvency Petition No.: 01 of 2025