1 mmj IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE Writ Petition No.8016 of 2009 Sunita Katra .. Petitioner v/s. Raj Hukumat Katra .. Respondent Mr. Prabhavalkar with Mr. Mohit Bhonsat i/b Mr. P.L.Mahadik for the Petitioner Mr. A.Y.Sakhare Sr. Advocate i/b Ms. Aarti Sathe for Respondent CORAM : SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, J. DATED : 7th January, 2010 P.C. : 1.Rule. By consent made returnable forthwith. The Respondent waives service. 2.The Petitioner-wife has challenged the order of the Learned Judge of the Family Court No.6 Mumbai dated 10.06.2009, rejecting her application for interim maintenance. The Petitioner s Petition was filed u/s 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act 1956. As per settled law the parameters for considering the Interim Application are as under section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. Consequently, income of the wife from whatever source is required to be first seen. If the 2 income is insufficient, any reasonable amount from the income of the husband is to be given to the wife. The aspect of residence for the wife would essentially be considered at the final hearing. 3.The application for maintenance has been taken out by the wife on 01.06.2007. Despite the fact that the parties married in 1990 and were separated in 2003. 4.The Divorce Petition was filed by the husband on 02.06.2007. 5.The wife in this case earns investment income. That is reflected in her income tax returns for the years 2007-08 and 2008-09. In the returns for the year 2007-08, the gross total income of the wife is shown to be Rs.2,06,748/- and in the very next year, the gross total income is shown as Rs.24,311/-. This income is for the previous year ended 31.03.2008. It is common knowledge and judicial notice is required to be taken of the fact, that on and from 01.03.2008, the share price of the listed companies fell because of world- wide recession. In this case the dividend amount earned by the wife in the year 2007-08 is shown to be Rs. 38,979, whereas in the next year it is shown to be Rs. 67,352/-. The interest income from one Raj Enterprises which was Rs.2,06,138/- in 2007-08 is shown to have 3 dwindled to Rs.14,232/-, in the next year which is the year of the filing of the aforesaid two Petitions. 6.It is argued that the dividend income came down and hence the gross total income has been reduced from Rs.2 lakhs to Rs.24,000/-. It is seen that it is actually not so; the dividend income has risen and interest income has fallen. It is not surprising to note, as has been stated by the Counsel on behalf of the Husband, that Raj Enterprises is the Firm of the wife s uncle. 7.The Learned Judge has considered this aspect in the order. The Learned Judge has observed that whereas the wife has got produced documents of the husband, she has not produced her own as required. Nevertheless, only these two years statement would suffice to show that the wife did have income. It has to be seen whether that income is sufficient to maintain her, pending the Petition. The income shown in the first tax return would be the key to determine her income even today in view of the plummeting of the income after the Petitions were filed. 8.The parties have one son. The son lives with the husband. The wife, therefore, does not have to maintain the child. She has to maintain herself alone. 4 9.The wife resides in two bed-room flat of her father. It is stated to be a licensed premises. Like every license premises there is a threat of termination of license. Nevertheless, the licensees of the premises in Mumbai do continue in possession even after threat, as would the wife in this case also, pending the Petition. 10.The Learned Judge has observed that though the wife separated from the husband in 2003 and started living separately, she did not claim any maintenance until 2007. The Divorce Petition is filed in 2007. The wife did maintain herself from whatever income that she had between 2003 and 2006. 11.That leaves the income of the husband to be considered. The husband works in a senior position in ABN Amro Bank. His income tax returns for the year 2006-07 is Rs.1.22 crores. The wife orally claims that the husband earns Rs.4.7 crores. There is nothing to substantiate that fact. However, the Court must consider that the income of the husband would increase, though not as much as the wife has stated from the year 2006-07 till date. 12.There is indeed a lot of difference between the investment income of the wife and salary income of the husband in the year 2006-07, which is the last year 5 before which the litigation began. Whereas the wife would be entitled to an additional amount of income pending the Petition, from the husband, if the husband earns far more than the wife, whether the wife s income is sufficient to maintain her would have to be seen. 13.The wife earns sufficient income to maintain herself pending the Petition. She has actually not applied for maintenance for three years after her separation. The observations of the Learned Judge that under these circumstances, the income is sufficient to maintain herself and she is not entitled to any further amount from the husband, merely because he earns much than she does, is not perverse , but rather correct. 14.The wife would be entitled to claim maintenance based upon her husband s station in life considering his income and properties at the final hearing of the Petition. However, pending the Petition, she is not entitled to claim maintenance. 15.Hence the Writ Petition is dismissed. 16.Rule is discharged. (SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, J.)