Dismissed

Alex Mathew v. Lina Alex and Ors.

Bombay HC7 Mar 2011REVN/56/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A criminal revision filed by a husband challenging the Family Court's maintenance order against him. The High Court dismissed the petition, upholding the wife's entitlement despite separate residences and confirming the quantum awarded based on adverse inferences drawn from the husband's lack of documentary evidence regarding his income.

What did the court decide?

The revision petition was dismissed at the stage of admission with no order as to costs.

Alex Mathew Vs Lina Alex and Ors. — Maintenance and Alimony | Bombay HC (2011)

REVN 56.11.sxw

JPP

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

¶5

CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 56 OF 2011

Mr. Alex Mathew.

... Applicant.

V/s.

Mrs. Lina Alex and Anr.

¶10

... Respondents.

¶11

Ms. Ansu Geogy Jacob i/b. Geogy Jacob & Associates for the Applicant.

¶12

Mr. Sandeep K. Shinde for the Respondents.

¶13

CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. DATED : 7^th MARCH 2011.

¶14

P.C. :-

¶15

The Respondent – wife filed an application under Section 125 of Cr. P.C. for maintenance for herself and child. The said Petition No.E-469 of 2008 filed in the Family Court at Bombay was tried and the learned Judge of the Family Court by order dated 27^th October 2010 decided the same and directed the Petitioner – husband to pay to the Respondent – wife Rs. 20,000/- per month for her maintenance and Rs.10,000/- for maintenance of daughter Rochelle. That order was to come into effect from date of the application. Cost of Rs.10,000/were also awarded.

¶16

The Petitioner – husband has filed this Petition so as to challenge this order dated 27^th October 2010. As the matter was called out, after some arguments, learned Counsel for the

¶17

¶18

REVN 56.11.sxw

¶19

Petitioner, upon instructions from the Petitioner – husband, who is present in the Court stated across the bar that the Petitioner – husband is not pressing this Petition so far as grant of maintenance to daughter. Hence, it was decided to hear learned Counsel for the Petitioner only on the question of grant of maintenance to the wife at the rate of Rs.20,000/- per month.

¶20

I have heard learned Counsels on both sides at the stage of admission. It is noticed that the Respondent – wife has filed Petition No. B-112 of 2007 for the purposes of certain reliefs and one such relief was restraining the husband from entering into the flat where the Respondent – wife is presently staying. It is noticed that ultimately by the order passed by the learned Judge of the Family Court in the said proceedings, the Petitioner – husband is restrained from dispossessing the Respondent – wife from the said house. At the same time, the Respondent – wife is directed to hand over a set of keys to the Petitioner – husband. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner made a grievance that the Respondent – wife has not handed over the keys. This grievance can be made by the Petitioner before the proper forum and this Court shall not hear the said grievance looking to the nature of this Petition.

¶21

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner took me through the provisions of Section 125(4) of Cr.P.C. to contend that if wife stays away from the husband she is not entitled to maintenance. According to the learned Counsel for the

¶22

¶23

REVN 56.11.sxw

¶24

Petitioner, as the wife has changed the locks of the flat, the Petitioner is unable to stay in the said flat and that is how wife has brought about a situation to hold that she is staying away from husband without just cause.

¶25

After having gone through the evidence, I am inclined to observe even if it is accepted for a moment that the wife is residing in the house and the husband is residing away it is on account of the dispute between the husband and wife and that is how the Petition No. B-112 of 2007 has been filed. The residence of the wife and the husband at two different places cannot be equated with a situation envisaged under Section 125(4) of Cr.P.C. Hence, the entitlement is rightly arrived at by the learned Judge of the Family Court, Mumbai.

¶26

So far as the quantum is concerned, the Petitioner has not produced before the learned Judge of the Family Court all documents to show his correct income. It is admitted by the Petitioner that he is doing business in the name of M/s. Communique Outdoors as a Proprietor and he is the Director of a Company by name M/s. Ensure Outdoor Advertising Pvt. Ltd. The Petitioner has not placed before the Court full income tax return as such. It is not possible for the Court to accept the acknowledgment as regards filing of income tax return as the correct document on the basis of which income figures can be arrived at. If the Petitioner is working as a Director of a Private Ltd. Company, it was necessary for him to produce all the documents to show as to what is the total

¶27

4 REVN 56.11.sxw

¶28

amount of money which he is getting from the said Company. Similarly, he was required to produce account of his proprietorship concern to let know the Court as to what is his real income.

¶29

The learned Judge of Family Court has observed that the Petitioner has not placed before the Court necessary documents including Bank Statement, etc. and therefore, adverse inference is required to be drawn. I am inclined to confirm the said observation.

¶30

Looking to the nature of the evidence placed before the Court, I am inclined to accept the stand of the wife that the husband has substantial income and that the grant of a sum of Rs.20,000/- per month as and by way of maintenance does not require any interference.

¶31

For the reasons mentioned aforesaid, I hold that the learned Judge of the Family Court has arrived at appropriate findings and has granted appropriate amount of maintenance. Hence, there is no need to interfere in order impugned.

¶32

Hence, following order is passed to dispose of the Petition :-

¶33

(i) The Petition is dismissed at the stage of admission.

¶34

(ii) There shall be no order as to costs.

¶35

(R.Y. GANOO, J.)

Alex Mathew v. Lina Alex and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Alex Mathew v. Lina Alex and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Niskalp Investments and Trading Co. Ltd. Vs S.P. Motors and Ors. and Rosate Estates Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.

Kisan Narayan Keni and Anr. Vs M/S. Atul Builders and Associations and Associations and 16 Ors.

The Board of Trustees of of Bombay Port Trust and Two Ors. Vs Reliable Extraction Ind. Pvt.Ltd. and Anr.

Jyoti Santosh Nair Vs Santosh Nair and Anr.

Abdul Gafar Abdul Hamid Tamboli Vs Afreen Bano Abdul Gafar Tamboli and Ors.

Pradeep T. Datwani Vs Mansi P. Datwani