IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 196 OF 2009 IN APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 67 OF 2009 MR. FRANCIS MILTON KEVIN NORONHA ALIAS FRANCIS NORONHA ... Applicant Versus MRS. ALOMA ANA GOMES ... Respondent Mr. J. Godinho, Advocate for the Appellant. Mr. John A. Lobo, Advocate as Amicus Curiae. Coram:- R. M. SAVANT, J. Date:- 9th December, 2009 ORAL ORDER By the above Civil Application, the Applicant who is the original Appellant in the above appeal, seeks stay of the Order dated 27.02.2009, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Mapusa, in Civil Misc. Application no. 323/2002/A in Matrimonial Petition no.25/2002/A, by which Order, Respondent and her son have been granted permanent maintenance of Rs.50,000/- per month. 2. An affidavit in reply is filed on behalf of the Respondent opposing the Civil Application, though the said reply is served upon the Respondent, quite sometime back, the Respondent has not chosen to file any rejoinder. 3. In granting the said maintenance, the learned Judge has, inter alia, taken into consideration various facts which have been reflected in the impugned Order. The Appellant is a Director of a Limited Company by the name of Noronha's International, having Head office in Colombo and branch office in Toronto, Canada. The lifestyle of the Appellant is also reflected in the said Order. The Appellant was travelling to Sri Lanka on business purpose and, at the relevant time, had spent an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- on his travel. The Appellant was also using a car in Sri Lanka, whose value was equivalent to Rs.50 to Rs.55 lakhs of Indian Rupees i.e. approximately 1,25,000 US Dollars. The Appellant, after coming from Sri Lanka, had rented a Mercedes, Benz car for his use in Mumbai and for which he was paying a monthly rent of Rs.1,25,000/- for renting out the said car from a car hirer. The Appellant also owns a yacht and is a member of the Royal Yacht Club, Mumbai. It is also come in the evidence of the Appellant that he spent an amount of Rs.11,46,288/- to buy spare parts for the Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution car to enhance the engine power by recharging it as he wanted to use the said car for racing purpose. The said car is not meant for ordinary use but is a racing car used by professionals. It has also come in his evidence that he has spent a huge amount for replacement of tyres to the extent of 5 lakhs Sri Lankan Rupees which is equivalent to Rs.1,50,000/- Indian Rupees. The Trial Court, therefore, assessed that the Appellant was a well to do businessman and leading a luxurious life style and that his income was Rs.2,00,000/- per month. This Court in Writ Petition no. 185 of 2007, which had been filed by the Appellant against the interim maintenance, had occasion to observe that in none of the affidavits before the Trial Court, the Appellant herein, has spelt out his exact income or assets. The details of his credit cards or expenditure which he has incurred is not placed for the perusal of the Court. This Court further observed that the husband i.e. the Appellant herein chose to restrict himself to denying whatsoever was alleged by the wife, but volunteered no information regarding his income and assets. 4. In juxtaposition, it was considered by the Trial Court that the Respondent herein i.e. the Applicant, wife, was working in Gulf Air in Mumbai as a ground staff and had to therefore reside in Mumbai and as she has no residence of her own in Mumbai, she has to live in rented premises and spend Rs.20,000/- or there abouts. The Trial Court has also taken into consideration the fact that the Appellant himself by his letter, which is at exhibit-25, desired that his son should get the best education and all the best facilities and had, therefore, requested the Respondent for the custody of the child. The Trial Court has also taken into consideration the fact that the maintenance would have to be decided in the context of the standard of living that the parties were accustomed to. The Trial Court was of the view that the son is entitled to the standard of living of his father, who was Director of a Company which had its base abroad and branch office in Canada. In fixing the quantum of compensation, the Trial Court has also considered the relevant provisions of Articles 171, 178 and 29 of the Portuguese Civil Code. The said Articles, inter alia, lay down what is meant by "maintenance" and the proportion to the income in which it can be granted. The Trial Court has taken into consideration all the relevant factors whilst fixing permanent maintenance of Rs.50,000/- for the Respondent-wife and the child. It is an admitted position that the child is studying in St. Mary's School, Mount Abu, which is one of the elite schools. This is as per the desire of the Appellant himself who wanted the child to get the best education. In my view, in the light of the estrangement between the parties, it is also desirable that the child studies in a boarding school, away from the parents. 5. It is pertinent to note that the Trial Court by its Order dated 06.01.2007, had fixed interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.50,000/- per month. The said interim maintenance was challenged by the Appellant by filing Writ Petition no. 185 of 2007. A learned Single Judge of this Court admitted the Writ Petition but refused to grant stay, by Order dated 13.09.2007. The said Order was challenged by the Appellant by filing SLP No. 19583 of 2007. The Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed the SLP but granted time to the Appellant to make payment of the said interim maintenance. The said Writ Petition no. 185 of 2007 came up for final hearing before a learned Single Judge of this Court. The learned Single Judge, by recording the statement made on behalf of the Appellant that he is willing to contribute Rs.10,000/-, disposed of the Writ Petition by fixing the said amount of Rs.10,000/- as and by way of interim arrangements till the disposal of the Application for maintenance by the Trial Court. 6. It is unfortunate that though an Order granting interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.10,000/- was passed which became operative from the year 2002 on account of the child on the basis of the statement made by the Appellant himself and though the application for maintenance has now been finally disposed of by the impugned Order, the learned Counsel for the Respondent states that except for one cheque of Rs.50,000/- paid on 03.12.2007, no further amounts have been paid by the Appellant. The learned Counsel for the Respondent further states that up to the date of passing of the impugned Order, an amount of Rs.9,25,000/- approximately from the year 2002 is payable by the Appellant on account of the said interim maintenance and Orders passed by this Court in Writ Petition no. 185 of 2007 at the admission stage and whilst finally disposing of the said Writ Petition. The Appellant having not paid the interim maintenance, has thereby disregarded the Orders passed by this Court. 7. The Appellant is, therefore, directed to pay the arrears of maintenance calculated at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per month for the anterior period to the passing of the impugned Order within six weeks from date. Since no interim reliefs have been granted in the above Civil Application, the Appellant would be obliged to make the payment of maintenance at the rate of Rs.50,000/- per month. The arrears at the rate of Rs.50,000/- per month from March 2009 till date to be paid within ten weeks from date. 8. Though the past conduct of the Appellant is bordering on being contemptuous, it is hoped and expected that the Appellant clears the arrears of interim maintenance and the arrears of permanent maintenance as stipulated above and the Appellant does not commit default in the payment of the monthly maintenance. On such payments being made, the Appellant would be at liberty to apply for an expeditious hearing of the above Appeal. 9. Considering all the aforesaid facts, in my view, no relief can be granted in the above Civil Application which is accordingly rejected. R. M. SAVANT, J. arp/*