IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE APPELLATE SIDE APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO. 614 OF 2009 WRIT PETITION NO. 614 OF 2009 WRIT PETITION NO. 614 OF 2009 Sandeep Bhalchandra Kerkar. ... Petitioner. V/s. Neelima Sandeep Kerkar. ... Respondent. Shashank C. Thatte for the petitioner. A.M.Vernekar for the respondent. CORAM: V.C.DAGA, J. CORAM: V.C.DAGA, J. CORAM: V.C.DAGA, J. DATED: 23rd January 2009. DATED: 23rd January 2009. DATED: 23rd January 2009. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: ---- ---- ---- . Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. This petition is directed against the order dated 28th March, 2008 passed by the 7th Family Court, Mumbai whereby an amount of Rs.25,000/- per month has been awarded towards maintenance and for shelter/rent from the date of application. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner, during the course of hearing, on being asked as to what is the income of the petitioner, came up with a figure of Rs.1,00,000/- per month. With the advancement of the argument during the course of hearing, my attention was drawn to page 121 of the petition which is a certificate issued by the Chartered Accountant of the petitioner; wherein his net income for the year 2005-06 is shown as Rs.30,81,258/- and for the year 2006-07 it is shown as Rs.36,33,910. If the annual income of Rs.36,00,000/- is divided by 12, the monthly taxable income of the petitioner would be about Rs.3,00,000/-. The gross income would be much more. So far as other investments are concerned, if they are taken into account, the income would again be little more. So far as income-tax returns are concerned, considering the scenario prevailing in the society, judicial note of the fact can be taken that it is not always true. The income shown for the purpose of income-tax cannot be accepted as correct income when the tendency is always to suppress true income. Tendency of suppressing real income to avoid taxation cannot be ruled out. Hence, income-tax returns cannot be a sole criteria to decide income of the person. 3. Be that as it may, taking the figure of taxable income of the petitioner, on the face of it, it would be difficult to reach to the conclusion that amount of Rs.25,000/- awarded by way of maintenance is arbitrary or perverse. Merely because the respondent- wife happened to stay with her parents in their flat, that by itself cannot be a ground to take away her right to claim maintenance. - 3 - 4. Having gone through the impugned order and the material available on record, no case is made out to interfere with the impugned order, apart from the fact that an attempt was made to mislead this Court saying that the income of the petitioner is Rs.1,00,000/- per month, especially, when the true income found to be Rs.3,00,000/- per month. The counsel appearing for the petitioner could not substantiate his submission on the basis of material available on record that the income is not Rs.3,00,000/- but it is only Rs.1,00,000/-. 5. In the above view of the matter, petition is dismissed in limine with costs quantified in the sum of Rs.10,000/- to be paid to the respondent- wife. (V.C.DAGA, J.) (V.C.DAGA, J.) (V.C.DAGA, J.)