1 WP-7865-11.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.7865 OF 2011 Manish Gobindram Sahni ..Petitioner Vs Tripti Manish Sahni and ors. ..Respondents -- Ms.Anupama Shah, for petitioner. Ms.Flaria Agnes, for respondents. -- CORAM : R.G.KETKAR, J. DATE : 18 th OCTOBER, 2011. P.C.: Heard Ms.Anupama Shah, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms.Flaria Agnes, learned counsel for the respondents. 2] Rule. The learned counsel for the respondents waives service. By consent of the parties, Rule is made returnable forthwith and heard finally. 3] By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the judgment and 2 WP-7865-11.sxw order dated 22 nd August, 2011 in Interim Application No.20 of 2011 (exhibit 6) passed by learned Judge of the Family Court in Petition No.E-29 of 2011. By that order, the Family Court allowed the application exhibit 6 made by the respondent wife and directed the husband to pay interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.24,000/- per month to wife and two minor daughters from the date of application i.e.from 13 th January, 2011 till the disposal of the main petition. 4] The wife has filed petition for maintenance being petition E-29 of 2011 of herself and two minor daughters under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. During the pendency of the main petition, she took out Interim Application no.20 of 2011 (Exhibit 6) for interim maintenance. It was contended that the husband has treated her with immense physical and mental cruelty. The respondent and his family members have made continuous demand of dowry which has caused grave mental agony to her. Since inception of the marriage, the husband has thrown out her from matrimonial home on number of occasions as enumerated in the petition. It was further asserted that the husband has neglected her and minor daughters. Even after marriage, she is depending on her parents and sisters. 3 WP-7865-11.sxw She further asserted that the husband has denied basic needs such as food and clothing. She is a house wife and has no source of income and she is completely dependent on her husband. She further contended that the husband is running a very successful automobile business. He has two automobile showrooms one at Jogeshwari and another at Malad. He is also dealer in three wheeler vehicles and CNG and LPG kits. He is also financer for buyers and earning over Rs.Three lacs per month. He has four employees in his office who get around Rs.8,000/- each per month as salary. Inspite of his high standard of living and purchasing power, he has willfully neglected her and her minor daughters. She, therefore, claimed maintenance of Rs.50,000/- per month for herself and Rs.25,000/- per month for each minor daughters towards interim maintenance. Thus, in all, she has claimed interim maintenance of Rs.One lac per month. 5] The respondent filed detailed reply dated 4 th August, 2011 opposing the interim maintenance. He contended that he had made an application for sale of flat as he is unable to pay E.M.I. The said application was heard at length and is reserved for orders. In so far 4 WP-7865-11.sxw as maintenance is concerned, it was asserted that he is paying maintenance, electricity bills, glossary bills by borrowing amount from his mother and sister. He is epileptic patient and undergoing treatment of Dr.B.S.Singhal, Neurologist who is practicing at Bombay Hospital. The wife is exploiting him due to his illness and subjecting him to tremendous stress and harassment, physical and mental cruelties since inception of marriage. The sole intention of the wife is to obtain huge money under extreme duress from him and his parents and to indulge in luxuries beyond his reach and also to grab the properties belonging to him and his mother. He has also averred that the wife is spending huge money in shopping. He also averred instances of illtreatment meted out by wife to him and his parents. He denied that he runs a very successful automobile business and he has two automobile show rooms at Jogeshwari and Malad. He has admitted that he is a sub-dealer in three wheeler vehicles and CNG and LPG kits. He denied that he is financer for buyers and earns over Rs.Three lacs per month. He also denied that he has four employees in his office and each earning around than Rs.8,000/- per month. On the other hand, he submitted that the wife is educated she is B.A. and LL.B. Till date, he has been paying grossary bills, 5 WP-7865-11.sxw milk bill for each month. He is also paying school fees in an aided school where the wife declined to send her daughters. He also relied upon the Income Tax return for assessment years 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 to show that his net income for the assessment year of 2008-2009 was Rs.1,05,410/- and for assessment year 2009-2010 it was Rs.1,19,620/-. He further asserted that the wife is staying with him under the same room and hence, she is not entitled to claim any maintenance. 6] On the basis of material on record, the Family Court directed the petitioner husband to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.24,000/- per month from the date of application i.e.13 th January, 2011 till disposal of main petition to the respondent wife and two minor daughters at the rate of Rs.8,000/- per month. It is against this order, the husband has preferred petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 7] In support of this petition, Ms.Shah contended that the petitioner is providing food, clothing and paying all the bills like electricity, grossary etc. The wife is educated and her qualification is 6 WP-7865-11.sxw B.A. and LL.B. Her average income is above Rs.One lac. The wife has also a flat at Mira Road. She also contended that the wife conducts tuition classes as also runs beauty parlour. Thus, the wife is regularly getting income and consequently, she is not entitled to claim any interim maintenance. 8] On the other hand, learned counsel for the wife contended that the husband is not paying bills like electricity, grossary. She submitted that the husband, admittedly, is a sub-dealer in three wheeler vehicles and CNG and LPG kits. She has therefore supported the impugned order. 9] In paragraph 25 of the impugned order, the Family Court has recorded that for the assessment year 2006-2007 of the petitioner, the net profit of Rs.3,18,934/- was shown. In paragraph 26, the Family Court observed that though the husband claims that he is facing financial crisis, he has not produced extracts of accounts to support his claim. He has withheld the best evidence which is in his custody. The Family Court, therefore, found it difficult to accept the submission of the husband that he is facing financial crisis. The 7 WP-7865-11.sxw Income Tax return for the assessment year 2008-2009 records his gross total income of Rs.1,93,705/- and for the assessment year 2009-2010 the gross total income was Rs.1,87,280/-. In so far as the contention raised by the husband as to whether the wife is conducting tuition classes and running beauty parlour is concerned, it was observed to that the parties will have to lead evidence and having regard to the documents on record, prima facie, the husband's yearly income is approximately Rs.Two lacs. The Family Court did not think it appropriate to direct the husband to pay educational expenses/school fees separately as prayed in application exhibit 10. Considering the income of the husband, basic needs of the wife and two minor daughters, their educational expenses and school fees, tuition fees etc., the Family Court directed the husband to pay interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.8,000/- per month each to wife and two minor daughters. 10] Having regard to material on record and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I do not think that the maintenance amount awarded by the Family Court is excessive or unreasonable. Considering the standard of living of the parties as also further 8 WP-7865-11.sxw having due regard that the husband is, admittedly, a sub-dealer in three wheeler vehicles and CNG and LPG kits, the amount of interim maintenance awarded by the learned Family Court is reasonable. At any rate, the parties will be at liberty to substantiate their claim by leading cogent evidence. Therefore, this is not a fit case for interference at the hands of this Court at this stage. 11] In the result, petition fails and the same is dismissed. Rule is discharged. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no costs. 12] At this stage, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner orally prays for eight weeks’ stay of this order. The learned counsel for the respondents states that, subject to the petitioner depositing 50% arrears of maintenance, the stay of this order may be granted. The learned counsel for the petitioner is not in a position to make statement to that effect. In view of this, prayer for stay is rejected. [R.G.KETKAR, J.]