Dinesh Sherla 913-cwp-5788-17
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 5788 OF 2017
Shri Sachin Shankar Jadhav .. Petitioner
vs.
Smt. Swetambari S. Jadhav .. Respondent
Mr.J.M. Puranik for the Petitioner.
Ms Swapna P. Kode for the Respondent.
CORAM : M. S. SONAK, J.
DATE : 4 DECEMBER 2018.
P.C. :-
1] Heard Mr. Puranik for the petitioner and Ms Swapna Kode for
the respondent.
2] The challenge in this petition is to the order dated 29 th
December 2016 made by the learned Trial Judge. The operative
portion of which reads as follows:
“1. Application is allowed.
2. The petitioner is directed to pay maintenance pendente lite
Rs.10,000/ per month to the respondent from the date of
application till pendency of the petition”.
3] Mr. Puranik, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits
that the petitioner – husband had produced income tax returns on
record from which it is evident that the income of the petitioner is
between Rs.20,000/- to Rs.25/- per month. He submits that the
respondent-wife had stated before the Trial Court that she is in
1/5
::: Uploaded on – 07/12/2018 29/12/2018 06:17:49 :::
Dinesh Sherla 913-cwp-5788-17
service and in receipt of income. However, this vital and relevant
aspects have not even been considered by the learned Trial Judge
while making the impugned order. For these reasons, Mr. Puranik
submits that the impugned order warrants interference.
4] Mr. Puranik relies upon Neeta Jain vs. Rakesh Jain – (2010)
12 SCC 242 to submit that a wife who is admittedly earning salary is
not entitled to maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage
Act, 1955 (H.M. Act). He relies upon Alok Kumar Jain vs. Purnima
Jain – DRJ 2007 96 115 and Mamta Jaiswal vs. Rajesh Jaiswal –
(II) 2000 DMC 170 2000 (4) MPHT 457 in support of the very
same propositions. For all these reasons, Mr. Puranik submits that
the impugned order warrants interference.
5] Ms Swapna Kode, the learned counsel for the respondent –
wife, defends the impugned order on the basis of reasoning set out
therein. She submits that the learned Trial Judge has taken into
consideration the income of the respondent – wife and only
thereafter determined the interim compensation at the rate of
Rs.10,000/- per month. She submits that under Section 24(2) of
H.M. Act, the wife is entitled to maintenance so as to be able to live
2/5
::: Uploaded on – 07/12/2018 29/12/2018 06:17:49 :::
Dinesh Sherla 913-cwp-5788-17
substantially the same lifestyle as she was accusotmed to whilst in
active matrimony. She submits that there is no error in the
impugned order and therefore, this petition may be dismissed.
6] The rival contentions now fall for determination.
7] There is no dispute as regards the liability for payment of
interim maintenance. The dispute is only as regards the quantum.
8] The respondent – wife had made disclosure as regards her
service and income from her service. The impugned order takes into
consideration such disclosure and it is only thereafter that the
interim maintenance amount has been determined at the rate of
Rs.10,000/- per month. The respondent has produced before this
Court the salary slips, from which, it is seen that she earns a salary
of Rs.10,000/- to Rs.15,000/- per month. Such earnings, are
relevant consideration, but the same have been taken into
consideration by the learned Trial Judge while making the impugned
order.
3/5
::: Uploaded on – 07/12/2018 29/12/2018 06:17:49 :::
Dinesh Sherla 913-cwp-5788-17
9] From the income tax returns placed on record by the
petitioner, the income of the petitioner is shown as Rs.25,000/- to
Rs.30,000/- per month. However, the record indicates that the
petitioner is a share broker in Mumbai. Taking into consideration
this factor as well as other material on record, it is really not
believable that the petitioner’s income is only what is reflected in the
income tax returns. The Division Bench of this Court in Vinod
Mehta vs. Kanak Vinod Mehta – AIR 1990 Bombay 120, has held
that income tax returns is not the sole guide for determining income
of party in such proceeding. In fact, the Division Bench has held that
it is common knowledge that income tax returns do not reflect the
true position of the income of a party for several reasons, and cannot
be taken as the sole guide for determining the income proceedings
for maintenance. To the same effect are the observations made by
the Delhi High Court in Bharat Hegde vs. Smt. Saroj Hegde – AIR
200 Delhi 197.
10] In Neeta Jain (supra), the Apex Court has held that the Court
has to take all the relevant factors into account and arrive at a
proper amount and maintenance. The income of the respondent
-wife is no doubt a relevant consideration. However, the impugned
4/5
::: Uploaded on – 07/12/2018 29/12/2018 06:17:49 :::
Dinesh Sherla 913-cwp-5788-17
order takes into account such consideration in determining the
maintenance amount, the Court has to take into consideration the
lifestyle which parties were accustomed to whilst in active
matrimony. All these aspects have been considered by the learned
Trial Court in making the impugned order.
11] The award of interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.10,000/-
per month in the facts and circumstances of the present case cannot
be said to be excessive or unreasonable.
12] Accordingly, this petition is liable to be dismissed and is
hereby dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
(M. S. SONAK, J.)
5/5
::: Uploaded on – 07/12/2018 29/12/2018 06:17:49 :::