High Court dismissed wife's writ petition challenging Family Court's interim maintenance order. Court held Family Court findings were not erroneous and refused to increase maintenance at interim stage.
Petition dismissed; Family Court's interim maintenance order maintained without modification. Request for stay of order refused.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
rsk 11-WP-12543-22.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.12543 OF 2022 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.34 OF 2023
Mrs. Mansi Bhavin Dharani V/s.
Bhavin Jagdish Dharani
...Petitioner.
...Respondent.
WITH CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.10127 OF 2019 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO.1161 OF 2023
Bhavin Jagdish Dharani ...Petitioner.
V/s.
Mrs. Mansi Bhavin Dharani ...Respondent.
Mr. Krishna K. Holambe Patil for the Petitioner in WP No.12543/2022 and for Applicant in CAW No.34/2023 and for Respondent in WP No.12543/2022. Mr. Abhishek L. Tripathi for Petitioner in WP No.10127/2019 and for Respondent in WP No.12543/2022.
CORAM : SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, J. DATE : 15th DECEMBER, 2023.
P. C.:-
seeking enhancement of maintenance granted by the impugned order dated 28/6/2019 and Petition No.10127/2019 has been preferred by the husband
seeking quashing and setting aside the order of the family Court granting
maintenance. For sake of convenience the wife is referred to as petitioner
1/8
rsk 11-WP-12543-22.doc
and husband is referred to as Respondent.
2/8
rsk 11-WP-12543-22.doc
submits that wife has candidly disclosed the income from her investment made in the past viz. Rs.40,000/- - Rs.50,000/- p.m. He submits that the Respondent is a Doctor serving as Senior Consultant. Pointing out to the findings of the Family Court, he would submit that income tax returns produced by husband shows income as Rs.12,71,329/- and there is an admission that he is getting monthly salary of Rs. 1,93,000/-. He would further point out the pleading of the Respondent stating that his monthly expenses are in the sum of Rs.1,78,000/- p.m. As such, his contention is that it is evident that there is suppression of income by the Respondent-husband. He further submits that petitioner is seeking maintenance of Rs.80,000/- for her and her son. He submits that expenses of the petitioner-wife includes monthly rent of Rs.26,000/-. He submits that during the pendency of this proceedings the petitioner-wife’s father has expired and she has lost her sole support. He further submits that the Family Court has granted Rs.20,000/to the wife and Rs.20,000/- to the child. However the said amount is not sufficient considering the fact that admittedly the respondent- husband is earning a monthly income of Rs.1,93,000/-. He would further point out that the respondent-husband is living in a flat ad-measuring about 1000 square feet whereas the wife is residing in a rental flat and paying rent of Rs.26,000/- per month.
3/8
rsk 11-WP-12543-22.doc
husband has pointed out the income tax returns filed before the Family Court and would submit that as per the income tax return his income is Rs.12,71,329/- for the Assessment Year 2018-19. He would further submit that subsequently due to Covid he has lost his job and Application will be made before the Family Court for modification of the order. He submits that the respondent-husband is not able to even pay maintenance for the child and seeks quashing of the order of the Family Court. He would further submit that the petitioner-wife has not disclosed her actual income. He submits that the wife is admittedly well educated lady holding a degree of M.Com, PHD. He further submits that the disclosure affidavit of the wife would indicate that there are number of investments made by her from which she is deriving income and as such she is not entitled to maintenance. He submits that all the money which was invested by her in the various investment schemes are in fact given by the husband and over period of three years sum of Rs.11 lakhs has been paid. Pointing out to the affidavit of disclosure filed by the respondent-wife he submits that the bank account shows regular income and that the affidavit will indicate that various investments have been made. He reiterates that the invested amount has been given by him to her over a period of time. In addition, he would
4/8
rsk 11-WP-12543-22.doc
submit that the petitioner is having gold ornaments and other jewellery worth Rs.20 Lakhs and the same can be utilized for her maintenance.
5/8
rsk 11-WP-12543-22.doc
income of Rs.40,000/- to Rs. 50,000/- and the financial liability of maintaining herself and her child which includes paying rental for her flat which at that point of time was Rs.26,000/- and after a gap of almost 2-3 years must have definitely escalated. On the other hand, the Respondenthusband’s admitted salary is of Rs.1,93,000/- which even after deduction is considered is a sum of Rs.1,73,800/-. For a salary of this amount, the income tax return of Rs.12,71,329/- produced on record is clearly questionable and as such cannot be relied upon. The Respondent has sought to portray that he has to pay the maintenance for his flat, medical claim policy and hospital bills of his parents. While doing so, he has forgotten the fact that he also has responsibility of maintaining his child and his wife. Surprisingly, now he seeks to shirk of his responsibility even towards minor child who is now aged 6 years and will obviously be studying in school and as such petitioner-wife will also have to bear additional educational expenses of the child. The Family Court on the basis of the evidence which has come on record has rightly granted a monthly interim maintenance of Rs.20,000/to the wife and Rs.20,000/- to the child from the date of Application till the decision of the petition. No doubt, wife is well educated and at the relevant time she was working. However there is no material on record to indicate that even subsequently she is gainfully employed with any establishment
6/8
rsk 11-WP-12543-22.doc
and receiving salary. She is dependent on the income which she is receiving from the investment which she has wisely made. If the contention of respondent- husband is that all the money which was invested has been given by him to her, it lends credence to her financial inability inasmuch as even when she was working she was unable to make such kind of investment. It is well known that investment made in the mutual fund unless sold cannot be utilized and the investments depend on the market volatility which will in turn determine the return she would receive from her mutual fund investment. At the same time, it also needs to be noted that her estimated returns on the investment are in the sum of Rs.40,000/- to Rs.50,000/- and as such with the grant of additional Rs.40,000/- she is now getting a sum of Rs.80,000/- Rs.90,000/-, which in my opinion is sufficient at the interim stage.
7/8
rsk 11-WP-12543-22.doc
28/6/2019 and this Court therefore cannot take into consideration any subsequent event. It is for the parties in case of change of circumstances to apply to the Family Court for modification, if so advised.
grant stay.
(SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, J.)
8/8
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the Family Court's grant of interim maintenance.
Whether the petitioner is entitled to additional maintenance given her alleged suppression of income.
Mrs. Mansi Bhavin Dharani
Bhavin Jagdish Dharani
Sharmila U. Deshmukh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
