Dismissed

Mr. Rahul Harish Shah v. Mrs. Nainy Rahul Shah

Bombay HC22 Mar 2013WP/1379/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay dismissed an appellate civil writ petition challenging an interim maintenance order. The single judge rejected the appellant husband's claim of meagre income, finding his family business accounts to be manipulated. The court held the interim maintenance was reasonable and dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition challenging the interim maintenance order was dismissed, dismissing the appeal against the interim maintenance granted to the wife and child.

Mr. Rahul Harish Shah Vs Mrs. Nainy Rahul Shah — Maintenance and Alimony | Bombay HC (2013)

WP.1379/2013(5)

mnm

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 1379 OF 2013

¶6

Rahul Harish shah Vs.

Nainy Rahul Shah

...Petitioner

...Respondent

Mr. U.J. Makhija i/b. Mahendra Patel Associates for the Petitioner Mr. P.J. Thorat for the Respondent

¶11

CORAM : MRS. ROSHAN DALVI, J. DATED : 22^ND MARCH, 2013

¶12

P.C. :

¶13

The petitioner husband has challenged the order of interim maintenance granted by the Judge, Family Court, No.6, Bombay on 5^th October, 2012 to the respondent wife in a sum of Rs.30,000/- p.m for her and Rs.20,000/- p.m for her son. He has also granted medical and educational expenses and permission to the respondent wife to stay in the shared residence.

¶14

The amount of interim maintenance alone is challenged. This is on the ground that the petitioner husband is a mere employee in one of his family concerns and a partner having 8% share in another of his family concern and his monthly income is far less than what has been computed by the learned Judge to arrive at the aforesaid interim maintenance.

¶15

The learned Judge has concluded that the husband's main

¶16

WP.1379/2013(5)

¶17

¶18

defence is dishonest. He is seen to be a partner of the two partnership firms. In the firm where he is admitted to be the partner, being the partner of Vora Brothers, he is a partner with the wives of his two paternal uncles along with him. The other firm of M/s. Rahul Chemicals.

¶19

The learned Judge has seen the balance-sheet and profit and loss account, the partners' capital account, fixed assets and the schedules to the accounts of the two firms.

¶20

It must be at once mentioned that both the firms carry on businesses at the same address. Hence, if the petitioner husband is partner in one firm and an employee in another firm he uses the same premises, furniture, equipments etc., whilst donning to hats. The learned Judge has rightly disbelieved such a situation.

¶21

The aforesaid documents would be interesting to consider.

¶22

In the firm of Vora Brothers where the petitioner husband is a partner, the remuneration to the partners is specifically shown in the profit and loss account. The partners' capital account shows the husband's own share of remuneration along with the interest of capital making a total of Rs.2,38,623/- as his 8% share. The fixed assets show airconditioner, building, calculator, fax machine, furniture, computer, motor car, office equipment and refrigerator which is in the premises where both the firms carry on businesses. The partnership firm of Vora Brothers has shown administration expenses of Rs.13,58,145/-

¶23

WP.1379/2013(5)

¶24

¶25

in the last accounting year. In the earlier year the husband's income was Rs.2,95,778/- in the same firm with same assets and heads of expenses.

¶26

In the firm of M/s. Rahul Chemicals at the same address (Rahul is the name of the Petitioner's husband). It has largely the same equipments except building, calculator and fax machine but including mobile phone and type-writer three other partners are shown. The father of the petitioner husband who is a partner in his individual capacity in the firm of Vora Brothers, is shown to be representing the HUF in the firm of Rahul Chemicals as a partner with his two wives of brothers. The petitioner being a son is a member of the HUF. This same son is stated to be the employee of the firm – the firm is named after an employee !

¶27

The expenses shown as forming a part of the accounts of this firm are also largely under the same head though the amounts are different. The petitioner partakes in the profits and shares the expenses as the partner of one firm, but not of the other. In that firm he claims his yearly salary of mere Rs.1,32,000/-. The petitioner, who claims to be an employee also earn's interest on loans advanced to the firm. His minor son similarly earns such interest.

¶28

It is easy to see that the accounts are wholly manipulated. It is also clear to see that there are family concerns and family businesses.

¶29

WP.1379/2013(5)

¶30

¶31

The petitioner has sought to rely upon, but one income tax return showing only the first page of the return for the assessment year 2010-2011, to show his individual annual income of mere Rs.1,06,546/-. The income tax assessment is only shown to be rejected.

¶32

The learned Judge has rightly come to the conclusion that the respondent has denied his partnership along with two other persons (who are his family members) and tried to hide that business.

¶33

The respondent wife showed a third family business of Vosch Enterprises. She could not produce the documents in that behalf. Hence, the petitioner husband denied his relation with that firm. She has thereafter been able to show documents. Those would have to be considered at the final hearing.

¶34

The petitioner husband is seen to have manipulated accounts and dishonestly denied what his wife could not prove. His income must be ascertained from the fact that he is a partner in three family concerns at the same address. The turnover of the businesses shown in the accounts which are produced is rather large. The petitioner husband has to pay Rs.30,000/- to his wife and Rs.20,000/- to his child each being a businessman who conceals his income from income tax and who exhibits dishonesty towards the Court. The interim order would be passed upon a reasonable deduction of his income.

¶35

WP.1379/2013(5)

¶36

¶37

The interim maintenance must be considered reasonable and proper until the petitioner is cross examined upon his business and until the further evidence obtained by the wife or any further evidence would be also considered.

¶38

Upon the documents produced by the wife in the petition rather than the husband himself this amount would stand to reason. The learned Judge, however upon considering the accounts has made any error in showing the salary and earning figures of the petitioner as his monthly salary, which it is usually shown. In this case the amounts earned are annual earnings either by way of salary or percentage profits. Those figures may be incorrect. However the reasoning is correct. The amount ultimately deduced is reasonable. Hence the interim maintenance order does not require any interference.

¶39

It is for the petitioner to himself produce his own truthful documents or to stand to trial.

¶40

Consequently the writ petition is devoid of merits. Hence dismissed.

¶41

(MRS. ROSHAN DALVI, J.)

Mr. Rahul Harish Shah v. Mrs. Nainy Rahul Shah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Rahul Harish Shah v. Mrs. Nainy Rahul Shah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P. v. Harindranath Vs Sujata Harindranath and Anr.

Shailesh Harishchandra Fulsunge and Anr. Vs Suchita Shailesh Fulsunge and Anr.

Mrudula Kishore and Ors. Vs Payal Malhotra and Ors.

Indrajeet Keshavrao Surve Vs Sudarshan Indrajeet Surve and Anr.

Mr. Raj Katra Vs Mrs. Sunita Raj Katra

Tushar S. Joag Vs Master Kashyap T. Joag